Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 20

DEFUSE: There is no evidence that any of the proposed experiments were ever carried out.
False. Concerning that such an important article is riddled with disinformation.

https://twitter.com/Engineer2The/status/1615425131643547648?s=20 2601:602:8200:4A10:9572:F4F8:FC6B:ECCE (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Needs a reliable source. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He's a member of DRASTIC. Why is he not any more reliable than Robert Garry who has a demonstrable history of acting in bad faith? 2601:602:8200:4A10:9572:F4F8:FC6B:ECCE (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * DRASTIC is not a reliable source. Robert Garry who has a demonstrable history of acting in bad faith?Do you have a reliable source to backup the assertion that Robert Garry acts in bad faith? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether or not there is a wiki-reliable source, there is evidence. The claim that there is not evidence needs a citation tagged on that sentence at a minimum, and attribution in-text to whatever source claims there is not evidence. Sennalen (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should have a citation on this sentence. Tagging. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The verification for that statement is actually from the citation in the very next sentence, the New Yorker piece : "Andersen emphasized that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the work described in the proposal was actually done"It's also verified by the other citation in the following sentence from "The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review": No published work indicates that other methods, including the generation of novel reverse genetics systems, were used at the WIV to propagate infectious SARSr-CoVs based on sequence data from bats. Gain-of-function research would be expected to utilize an established SARSr-CoV genomic backbone, or at a minimum a virus previously identified via sequencing. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I didn't see those while skimming the nearby refs. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "No published work" is different from "no evidence". Adoring nanny (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Published work" is how Wikipedia defines the truth. E.g. WP:NOTTRUTH. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are using the policy in a way in which it doesn't apply. We have no policy saying that if a source says "no published work", we can freely substitute the phrase "no evidence." Rather, our articles are based on published work. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We have no policy saying that if a source says "no published work", we can freely substitute the phrase "no evidence." No, but we do have WP:YESPOV, experts saying there is no evidence, and a quote from a scholarly review article published in an extremely reputable journal saying there are no published experiments. We're not "freely substituting" anything. We're saying what the sources say. Anonymous biased pundits from The Intercept saying "evidence exists in the published literature" is not enough to contradict that, and it runs directly counter to what our best sources say. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 04:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors have some options when dealing with WP:INACCURACY. WP:V is not a suicide pact. Sennalen (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sennalen@Adoring nanny overall this is a waste of time. If you believe the phrase should be removed, given that no consensus exists here to make that change, then you should pursue one of the usual avenues (e.g. WP:RFCBEFORE, WP:3O, or a noticeboard). — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 04:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3O is a no go, but the noticeboard option could be explored. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Evidence is mentioned here: Other scientists contacted by The Intercept noted that there is published evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was already engaged in some of the genetic engineering work described in the proposal and that viruses designed in North Carolina could easily be used in China. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So just to summarize:
 * We have a source (The Intercept), which we have consensus to say is biased, should be attributed, and is not very reliable for science
 * That source went to anonymous unnamed "scientists" (Alina Chan? Giles Demaneuf?) and asked them about genetic engineering
 * Those sources say there is evidence that the experiments were conducted
 * The Intercept source itself says the grant proposes genetic engineering experiments be conducted in North Carolina, not China: [Others] pointed out that the proposal called for most of the genetic engineering work to be done in North Carolina rather than China. “Given that the work wasn’t funded and wasn’t proposed to take place in Wuhan anyway it’s hard to assess any bearing on the origin of SARS-CoV-2,” Stephen Goldstein...
 * Nobody in our more reliable sources (especially peer-reviewed ones) agrees with any of this
 * Not exactly a slam dunk, is it? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Related coverage from the WaPo editorial board yesterday: https://archive.is/wintb Sennalen (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like we should attribute Andersen's false statement. And yes, in the article, we can leave out the "false" part, because false reliability beats truth in WikiLand. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would we attribute a statement when peer-reviewed scholarly sources say the exact same thing? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because, in unattributed form, the statement is false. Consider it an exercise in editorial discretion. Don't we have a policy somewhere that says "just because something can be sourced, doesn't mean it has to be?" Adoring nanny (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to say, even here, that the statement is false. Even assuming the source is reliable and the unnamed scientists are correct, it can both be true that "some of the genetic engineering work described in the proposal" was done and that the experiments described in the article paragraph were never carried out, or at least that there's no evidence of their being done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The site consensus on the Intercept is not that it's uniquely unsuitable for science, just that it's non-peer reviwed news (which is equally true of The New Yorker). The article should have an attributed opinion of Andersen via the New Yorker and Alina Chan via the intercept. Going by this MIT Technology Review piece Chan was a bigger part of the topic than the offhand mention currently in our copper mine section, and an approximate counterpart to Andersen in the controversy. Sennalen (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The article should have an attributed opinion of Andersen via the New Yorker and Alina Chan via the intercept Why would we do that when we have peer-reviewed scholarship (The Critical Review paper) which says exactly the same thing as Andersen? That would be putting peer-reviewed secondary review articles published in high caliber journals (Cell) below The Intercept. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that it was published a month before the DARPA proposal was leaked, it doesn't precisely speak to the question. (It also makes part of its case on the lack of index cases at WIV, which became known shortly after publication.) It's part of the range of views in reliable sources, but not the last word. Sennalen (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Some interesting quotes from the same New Yorker piece that might also be worth highlighting,
 * Fauci recalled that, among the participants, opinions were divided. “Knowledgeable people were saying, It does look like it could be something that might be engineered, because it’s not something you usually see,” he told me. “Then you have somebody else equally as knowledgeable say, Oh, nonsense, you can see that in other situations.”
 * But Susan Weiss, a coronavirus expert at the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school, who co-authored a recent paper with Andersen and others that outlines the evidence for a natural origin, was surprised when I told her that they had been working in BSL-2. “That’s not a good idea,” she said.
 * According to Shi, the W.I.V. has only isolated and grown in culture three novel coronaviruses out of their nineteen thousand samples. What this chapter of her work demonstrates, however, is a high tolerance for risk. “They were essentially playing Russian roulette with the virus that the world’s expert had labelled poised for human emergence,” David Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford, said. “It’s the willingness to manipulate them without due concern.”
 * But, they wrote, the team “does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research.” That is, the group didn’t have a plan for the event that their experiments created a novel, pandemic-ready virus. Reviewers within DARPA “were really shocked” by the “irresponsible” nature of the proposal, and its lack of consideration for the risks that gain-of-function research would entail, an official, who was not authorized to speak to reporters, told me.
 * And yet, SARS-CoV-2’s intermediate animal—among the only things, at this point, that could definitively prove that it did not originate in the Wuhan labs—has not been found.
 * WP:SOURCEMINE Sennalen (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * again, we trust peer reviewed secondary scholarship over things like this. Many of these statements (particularly 1, 3, 4, 5) were either A) talking about a point in the past, or B) have since been refuted or superseded with more evidence/scholarship/analysis. For instance, no animal host has been confirmed but several have been found to harbor very similar viruses in nature. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, do we just trust peer reviewed secondary scholarship? Or do we trust David Gorski too? Sennalen (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Check. Mate. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Each claim is evaluated independently based on the sources available for that claim. If there are instances where Gorski is cited, no scholarship is cited, and multiple more recent high quality news sources (not just cranks quoted or sources low-quality for science e.g. The Intercept) directly contradict Gorski, then we should definitely talk about it. SBM itself is a high quality non-scholarly non-news source, and WP:PARITY applies, so it isn't as simple as one or the other. In instances where high-quality scholarship and Gorski are both cited, WP:YESPOV applies and we should state it as fact in wiki-voice. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * . . . but the backing-up is for the weaker phrase "no published work", not for the stronger, and false, claim of "no evidence". So we should go with the backed-up "no published" work phrase. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Or possible more like "No peer-reviewed assessment..." Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * From the cited review article: "no evidence exists to support such a notion". See it, say it. Sorted. Bon courage (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * the most annoying slogan ... you must be a tube victim Iskandar323 (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the available evidence and WP:STICKTOSOURCE I suggest replacing
 * There is no evidence that any of the aforementioned experiments were ever carried out.[New Yorker][Cell]
 * with
 * An EcoHealth spokesman said the work described in the proposal was not done.[New Yorker] Kristian Andersen, an infectious-disease expert at Scripps Research, says there is no evidence that the expierments were carried out.[New Yorker] According to The Intercept, it spoke to some scientists who say there is published evidence of some genetic engineering work described in the report being done.[The Intercept] There is no published work that suggests infectious SARS viruses were created from bat sequences at WIV.[Cell] Sennalen (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Howling pov. Makes it sound like one guy's thought. Just assert what the strong source says and it's job done. Why cite shit sources? Bon courage (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Intercept isn't shit; it's good investigative journalism. Also, this piece is fairly balanced and itself confirms that the "no evidence" statement. It just draws in other details about some of the potentially more risky work the lab applied for funding for and how some of its research dipped a toe in gain-of-function, but without drawing any specific conclusions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's shit in comparison. We're not going to be undercutting secondary, peer-reviewed science with "journalism". Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, it's not clear that the article does any undercutting. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is just one guy's thought. If we take out Andersen, there are zero sources saying that the work in the DEFUSE proposal was not done. Cell came out a month before the leak and doesn't mention DEFUSE, so using it to talk about that work is SYNTH. What it specifically says is that an infections SARS virus was not created from bat sequences. That's not the totality of what was proposed to DARPA. Sennalen (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no SYNTH in the article, and no we're not undercutting accepted science with "one guy's thought" in lay press, especially in a FRINGE space. Come back when there's some secondary peer-reviewed science. Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You do realize you are arguing against the sole source for the claim of no evidence that DEFUSE work was done? Sennalen (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources for the claim of no evidence that are both lay press and undercutting accepted science? Or are you equating lay press that corroborates accepted science with lay press that contradicts it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * From the good sources, there is no evidence the virus existed in any lab. No decent source contradicts that. The DEFUSE stuff is a red herring unless some excellent source says otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Cell review uses the two terms for two different claims: Further, there is no evidence of prior research at the WIV involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses... No published work indicates that other methods, including the generation of novel reverse genetics systems, were used at the WIV to propagate infectious SARSr-CoVs based on sequence data from bats. The current text of the article mentions two elements of DEFUSE: the furin cleavage site insertion (as the Cell source directly referred to not having evidence supporting such a thing), and the creation of vaccines to distribute among bats. I interpret "no evidence" as referring specifically to the furin cleavage site claim (we should clarify that the bat vaccination plan isn't included in the "no evidence" statement if you think the current wording is confusing).
 * There may be room to ensure our text makes sense chronologically. Proponents were speculating without evidence about artificial furin cleavage site insertion prior to the DEFUSE grant proposal became public knowledge, and go from there to describe the rejection (in 2018? Seems to be missing from the article) and lack of later publications which would indicate similar work was later carried out. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like the right avenue to go down Sennalen (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I interpret "no evidence" as referring specifically to the furin cleavage site claim (we should clarify that the bat vaccination plan isn't included in the "no evidence" statement if you think the current wording is confusing). Although I will say, per WP:SKYBLUE, there also is no evidence of anyone ever doing any of the proposed vaccination experiments with spike proteins. I would also be fine with removing the spike protein vaccine from the paragraph altogether since it has nothing to do with any live virus and thus is completely unconnected to the lab leak theory. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see it rearranged than removed, as the spike protein vaccination in bats is seemed to be the relevant part of the proposal for preventing future human epidemics (and thus the mundane rationale for why it would be proposed in the first place). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A good point. Maybe added back in the first couple sentences of the paragraph? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe rephrase the sentence summarizing the intent? The grantees proposed to evaluate the ability of bat viruses to infect human cells in the laboratory by creating chimeric coronaviruses which were mutated in different locations, as well as creating protein-based vaccines which would be distributed to bats in the wild to reduce the chances of future human outbreaks. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I like that idea. I think the edits we already have to the sentence referencing the Cell and New Yorker sources already fix any confusion between the vaccine idea and 'evidence experiments were conducted' etc. So we can just reintroduce the vaccine thing in this way and it's fine imo. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not just one guys thought. We also have numerous sources from after DEFUSE saying "there is no evidence to support a lab leak. E.g. To this day, no scientific data exist to support a lab leak of SARS-CoV-2 —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not remotely the same claim Sennalen (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We have no  actual evidence that any of the experiments were conducted. Even the intercept, which provided every other document in extreme detail, failed to actually provide any of these purported "publications" their anonymous sources refer to. That's a pretty glaring hole in the logic, when all the named experts say no such publications exist. NPOV tells us to report what the consensus of our "best available" sources say. And The intercept is not in that category. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think maybe it relates to the person named in the same paragraph talking about samples being mailed between Wuhan and North Carolina, but I agree the phrasing is sloppy in a way that invites suspicion Sennalen (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's too much for that particular point. We should just change "no evidence" to "no published work" and leave it at that. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Original research (WP:PROFRINGE) failing WP:V, so obviously not. Bon courage (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's straight from the Cell source. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The cell source also uses the phrasing "no evidence" — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * According to The Intercept, it spoke to some scientists who say there is published evidence of some genetic engineering work described in the report being done. As an alternate way of thinking about this, why are we citing an investigative journalist citing (unnamed?) sources citing publications? Why aren't we citing the publications themselves, with added context from a secondary source as necessary? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How's this?It takes the Critical Review piece and the NewYorker piece, and gets as close as possible to quoting them without doing so, still a paraphrase. It directly addresses the claims made about DEFUSE. Is that better? We should remove the spike protein vaccine anyway, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the lab leak theory (as proteins are not viruses) and is thus UNDUE.

— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems fine apart from the last sentence, which oversimplifies. The first sources says it is 'highly possible' for it to have evolved in nature; the last says it would be illogical to engineer a virus with a suboptimal cleavage site (and there being no evidence of such work at WIV), as well as pointing to other things that are naturally indicative; and the middle source says the cleavage site is highly unusual and notes that a viable natural origin has proved to be elusive. So, the full picture to include is: 'unlikely furin cleavage site engineering' and 'high probability/strong indications of natural origins', despite the 'unusual cleavage site' and 'the absence of a viable natural origin to date'. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a substantial improvment over what's in the article. I would not object to replacing what is there right away. However, the last two sentences still over-synthesize. The claims that are clearly stated in Cell are:
 * There is no evidence that furin cleavage sites were inserted into coronoaviruses at WIV.
 * Natural emergence of the furin cleavage site is plausible.
 * There is no published work indicating any method was used to propagate infectious SARSr-CoVs based on sequence data from bats
 * There are holes in those clauses big enough to drive trucks through. Was there unpublished work? Was there work that didn't happen at WIV? Did they make non-infectious pseudoviruses? Did they create something using sequences from anything other than a bat? Jack Nunberg in the Intercept seemed to think something was engineered in North Carolina and mailed to WIV. Maybe a reasonable person should infer that none of these things happened, but Wikipedia can't do it using these sources. Sennalen (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The NYT says "China has destroyed evidence". So if you say there is no evidence for something, you need to include that, or you are painting a misleading picture. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's actually a paraphrase of what Avril Haines said, not the NYT. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"Most Scientists Believe" Indefinite & Inaccurate
It isn't correct to say that most scientists believe something when there is not clear consensus. Such a statement would have to be demonstrated by repeated polling and qualified. It likewise isn't correct to say that a zoonotic or lab leak origin is more likely-- the evidence for both ideas is completely inadequate, and the inadequacy of *both* hypotheses (they are hypotheses, nit theories, until they are proven) is reflected in pieces of scientific literature on both sides of the debate. Regardless of the fact that there exist conspiracy theories associated with the lab leak theory, and part and parcel to their existence, it is clear that media bias has clearly brought social and political pressure down on the scientific community in favor of zoonotic origin, and that pressure has indirectly tainted this article. The article is broadly fine and well written and edited, but the sentence following the phrase "most scientists believe..." *must* be eliminated. It is not verifiable and *it is not true.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8853:6961:54EB:A103:1195:3CF5 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The article is actually painfully NPOV, and appears to be an extension of American "culture wars" rather than a serious assessment of the scientific situation. I simply cannot believe that in all these thousands of words, which frequently accuse the theory of being driven by "racism and xenophobia", it is somehow not mentioned that the theory was first publicised in a Feb 2020 research paper by two Chinese scientists, Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, the latter of whom works at the Wuhan research hospital just a few hundred metres from the outbreak.
 * In the light of the US DoE and FBI both announcing that they believe this theory to be the most likely, can we please have a review of this article that removes all the nonsense American "culture wars" accusations of racism and conspiracy theories... Fig (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * which frequently accuse the theory of being driven by "racism and xenophobia", You mean twice ? (once in the lead once in the body?) The mention cited to nearly a dozen reliable sources, many not associated with the U.S.? it is somehow not mentioned that the theory was first publicised in a Feb 2020 research paper by two Chinese scientists, Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, the latter of whom works at the Wuhan research hospital just a few hundred metres from the outbreak. This is a WP:PREPRINT and therefore not reliable. We have a peer-reviewed source which says the first mention was in a January 2020 preprint. Do you have secondary reliable sources which back up the assertion that yours was the first mention of the theory? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per a recent news piece from Nature, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really dispute the claim in this section. A majority vs minority opinion is still a divide. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's obviously a prominent point of view on the topic of what scientists think. I've updated the lead to include it. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see my edit was reverted with a reference to WP:NPOV. But that is precisely why the edit is appropriate. For another recent source which supports the edit, see the NYT The NYT is saying essentially the same thing I said in my edit. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nor sure what the issue is here. Most relevant scientists reject the lab leak; a few round the fringe still entertain it. We say that, it's sourced, nothing contradicts it. So what's the issue. I hope we're not trying to stretch 'divided' into 'equally divided' eh!? see WP:GEVAL. Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The mainstream scientific position is that neither spillover or lab leak are proven or likely to be proven, and both deserve continued inquiry. You are trying to spin language about what is "likely" in order to push the POV that lab leak theories are confined to the fringe. That's not the consensus of reliable sources. Sennalen (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really. The topic here is governed by WP:FRINGE per our sourcing: if in doubt ask (again) at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would you say the scientific position is that? I don't really see that in our sources. Zoonotic sources take time, it took years for them to prove it for SARS-CoV-1. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The question is not "what is the true origin of Covid?" but, "Is the lab leak hypothesis a significant minority, taken seriously by (some) scientists, published in legitimate journals, and studied in a way that does not conflict with known laws of nature?" That answer to that is emphatically yes. Sennalen (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually sure the answer to "taken seriously by (some) scientists, published in legitimate journals, and studied in a way that does not conflict with known laws of nature?" is yes. I have seen no peer-reviewed expert-authored secondary review papers published in authoritative topic-relevant journals which actually argue the lab leak is more likely.But that is mostly irrelevant. These notions have absolutely nothing to do with the language Adoring nanny inserted into the lead. That language is WP:WEASEL wording to make the lab leak seem more supported than "a significant minority". It gives false balance. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need sources saying that a lab leak is most likely in order to say a lab leak is plausible, not pseudoscience. Of those papers saying natural origin is most likely, 95% accede that a lab leak is plausible. Sennalen (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is saying here it isn't plausible. That is a red herring. Aliens visiting earth is plausible, but still a FRINGE idea. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the lab leak hypothesis a significant minority, taken seriously by (some) scientists, published in legitimate journals, and studied in a way that does not conflict with known laws of nature? This description is similar to the one in WP:FRINGE/ALT, the fringe guideline explicitly applies to more than pseudoscience (which - to be clear - the lab leak theory broadly isn't, except for some extreme pseudoscientific outliers). But it isn't the mainstream view, hence using FRINGE to ensure we place it into that context.
 * To add to what mentioned about journals, our WP:BESTSOURCES do favor natural zoonosis. As far as I can tell, nearly exclusively, with the strongest statements in top journals being more along the lines of "we should seriously consider this a possibility" rather than "it's probably the most likely explanation". Which indeed fits with that fringe assessment. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the current lead leaves out the second paragraph. My proposed version includes it. My proposed version did clearly say that most scientists believe in zoonosis, specifically: Adoring nanny (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would characterize this as WP:WEASEL way of detracting from the scientific consensus to overemphasize "divided". We have one recent news source which says this. We have multiple high quality scholarly review sources which do not say this. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You may have forgotten the Nature news source above? That is two. Furthermore, WP:NPOV is more about prominence of sources than about number. Nature and the NYT are both among the most prominent sources out there. And it just took me about one minute to come across a third source that says something similar, this time a scholarly one: A fourth source is already cited in our lead and goes on to argue for zoonosis, but clearly acknowledges that LL is a main hypothesis  Adoring nanny (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of these sources supports the language you inserted.
 * Nature [News] and the NYT are both among the most prominent sources out thereAnd how do those news sources compare to a scholarly review published in Cell? And other similar secondary scientific journal articles? Including one published in February of this year? Or to these many multiple other news sources also published recently?:Where did SARS-CoV-2 originate and how did it evolve to infect humans? The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 continues to be an area of controversy and has been, and is being, investigated by many national and international organizations, including the WHO (World Health Organization). It is almost certain that the virus originated in bats and crossed species to humans either directly or indirectly via intermediary hosts. There remains debate on whether the virus first infected humans from a zoonotic source or from a research laboratory, but, no matter what the answer to this question is, it is clear to us that in order to be prepared for the next pandemic, we need to further delineate the panoply of coronaviruses present in bats and possible intermediary hosts<dl><dd><dl><dd>Opponents say there is still no hard evidence for a lab leak, as many scientists still believe the virus most probably came from animals, mutated and jumped into people</dd></dl></dd></dl><ul><li>:</li></ul><dl><dd><dl><dd>In the meantime, since the original intelligence agency report, there has been new evidence for natural spread. Two related papers published in Science in July 2022 combined epidemiologic methods and genomics to map the earliest known COVID cases. They found that cases centered on one particular live-animal market in Wuhan, China, and that two slightly different variants emerged there within a few weeks. This implies that the virus was mutating in infected animals being sold on-site, rather than originating in research labs across the river. Still, it’s not clear where the first infected animal came from. As an author on one of the papers pointed out, a lab leak is still technically plausible.</dd></dl></dd></dl>
 * many scientists remain convinced the virus most likely originated naturally..."As I said before, I am willing to reconsider my hypothesis if presented with verifiable, affirmative evidence," tweeted Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization. "For now, I see no evidence that suggests the current scientific evidence base is incorrect. And that evidence base continues to suggest the pandemic originated via zoonotic spillover at the Huanan market.
 * The overall sourcing landscape does not support the "divided" WP:WEASEL language. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Two of your own sources support the "divided" language. From your own Guardian source: Some scientists and other observers argue that the lab leak theory cannot be ruled out and should be kept separate from the racist propaganda that often accompanies it. It demands careful investigation, not peremptory dismissal or acceptance, they contend. And your own Perlman quote straight up says that there remains debate about LL. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that there remains debate or that a minority of scientists think X does not mean we should overemphasize how "divided" a group is about X. Some scientists think String theory is B.S. But we don't describe the subject prominently in that lead as "dividing" scientists. Instead, the lead says: These issues have led some in the community to criticize these approaches to physics, and to question the value of continued research on string theory unification. That's as far as they go. Which is analogous to our situation here.Ditto for ADHD. Some scientists don't think ADHD is a real disorder. But we don't say that Scientists are "divided" on the issue. Instead, the article says (in the body): The pathogenesis of ADHD is not wholly clear, however a large body of scientific evidence supports that it is caused by a complex mixture of genetic, pre-natal and early post-natal environmental factors.etc. etc. ad infinitum. WP:FALSEBALANCE is a policy. Not a guideline, or a suggestion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Rather than emphasizing the "divided" aspect, we should just emphasize that lab leak hypotheses have not been ruled out, that they continue to be a topic of scientific investigation, and canot be dismissed as mere conspiracy or racism. Sennalen (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The current lead is definitely oddly balanced, but also tricky to remedy. The first paragraph massively front-loads the lead not with information about the subject but with assurances about the prominence of the zoonotic theory. Only in the second paragraph does the lead continue where the first sentence left off and actually resume explaining the subject. (Only to immediately dispense with the exposition and resume the zoonosis apologetics again thereafter.) The first paragraph should really include both the first sentence of the second paragraph and the first sentence of the fourth paragraph to actually half outline the topic properly. The only thing that has prevented me from boldly attempting this is that the lead has been worked into such a rigid formulaic straightjacket that if you move even a single sentence then the flow of the whole thing (and its inbuilt narrative) gets messed up. That's no credit to the narrative, but no one wants chaos. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe what you're describing is called WP:FRINGE-compliance: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite so. The fringe stuff needs to be framed within the mainstream take, Here, that's easy. Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really. It is basic lead writing. The current first paragraph goes into more detail of what the lab leak theory is not that what it is. That is just ineffectually outlining the subject. I get the desire to guard this page from fringe material, but that shouldn't overshadow really basic stuff. At present the first paragraph does not even cover the who, what, where, when, why. It takes until the second paragraph to even mention the WIV, which, as the second paragraph notes, is central to the theory. WP:FRINGE says nothing about ignoring the basics of MOS:LEAD. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason for the discrepancy you're noticing is that multiple laboratories have been implicated (Wuhan CDC, WIV), with multiple mechanisms (accidental leak of a naturally collected virus, accidental leak of a modified virus during experiments, intentional bioweapon, intentional manipulation to make it more infectious, etc). We don't preference any one of these ideas, because none of them have any evidence in their favor. We only say "The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, is the result of a laboratory leak" Because that's the only thing all these various and disparate theories have in common. We only mention WIV because that was the first one implicated, in the paragraph about the beginning/overall basis of the idea. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for claims of intentional bioweapon creation - that is COVID-19_misinformation. Re: multiple laboratories, if two is the total number (both in Wuhan), that doesn't seem very hard to add or integrate with the opening statement about a laboratory leak. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for claims of intentional bioweapon creation - that is COVID-19_misinformation#Bio-weapon.Why is that? A bioweapon which is unintentionally released would be a "lab leak".if two is the total number (both in Wuhan), that doesn't seem very hard to add or integrate with the opening statement about a laboratory leakWe also cover the Chinese Government-touted Fort Detrick/ USAMRIID lab leak theory in this article. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All the bioweapon stuff, aside from being daft (why even create a bioweapon as untargeted and only semi-lethal as Covid, when better pathogens already exist?), is obvious conspiracy theory. It is hardly relevant whether such ideas revolve around an intentional release or leak narrative, since the conspiracy theories are not considered plausible by reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As an aside a "leak" does not inherently imply an accidental release. People in politics intentionally "leak" information all the time. Sources about the "lab leak" also commonly refer to intentional formulation of viruses, and the bioweapon conspiracy theory. E.g. . Thus such information is clearly WP:DUE in this article.Another aspect of this is that misinformation commonly cited as "evidence" for the virus being "manipulated" in a lab to make it more transmissible in humans is also often cited as "evidence" for many other versions of the lab leak. E.g. "the virus was adapted to humans already" "it has evidence of a modified furin cleavage site" etc etc. These little nuggets of misunderstanding the science are also often cited to say " see! They were messing around with viruses! " by both people who think "this was a bioweapon!" and people who think "maybe scientists were tinkering with the virus in a lab and something went wrong!". It's all very intimately wrapped up together in many ways, hence why our sources often discuss both together or synonymously, making little distinction. There are a minority of non-expert scientists (who are experts in other areas, but not virology or viral genetics) who cite this information. But I have yet to see serious practicing-today non-senile non-Nobel syndrome actual-factual expert-virologists who think it was intentionally manipulated in a lab. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Virologists are not the only group with relevant expertise. The FBI, for example, is an expert in investigations, including homicides and possible homicides (i.e, deaths which may or may not be homicides), which applies here. They have expertise in areas such as behavioral evidence, where virologists are not experts. And it is striking that the virological papers you keep citing have a habit of ignoring the behavioral evidence that is so telling. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a flawed argument. The FBI are expert in investigations, but not in medical or scientific topics. The FBI and physicists (i.e. those at DoE) aren't experts in medicine or biology or epidemiology or virology or public health policy or any of those topics. It's worth documenting those fringe viewpoints as they are newsworthy and significant. But the mainstream view hasn't changed. If it does, we can change that then. Otherwise, we're playing at WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:ADVOCACY to promote a false WP:NPOV. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Virologists aren't experts in investigations. It's relevant expertise. For example, the virological papers routinely make the elementary investigatory error of taking the word of suspects at face value. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant, and that's your WP:OR. The topic of COVID-19 lab leak theory isn't "investigations." It's a public health topic. FBI might have expertise in criminal investigations and forensic investigations. Not medical ones. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 04:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It illustrates the fact that multiple forms of expertise are relevant here. Some editors seem to assume that it is descended from Heaven on a stone tablet that virologists are most qualified to investigate this. But there is no Wikipedia policy saying that, and it's not true either. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The WHO, the FBI, CIA, DOE, the National Intelligence Council and the US CDC all agree that both a natural origin and a leak from a Wuhan lab are plausible and worthy of further investigation.
 * It's not credible to claim that the main Wuhan lab leak is a fringe view. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not credible to claim that the main Wuhan lab leak is a fringe view. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "Most relevant scientists reject the lab leak".
 * Folks keep repeating this like a broken record, but it's not demonstrably true. The precise reason that the operative words are "scientific consensus", and not "scientific majority" is that the latter is indefinite.  The truth is not subject to a majority vote-- not by "relevant scientists" or anyone else. It's OK to use "most scientists" colloquially in a case where there is broad agreement in the scientific community which is referenced and objectively malleable based one new information. That simply is not the case here.  Please delete the offending sentence beginning with "most scientists", or provide a meaningful rebuttal of this and the original argument.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2005:339D:ADA2:C3AA:122F:E800 (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would rather question your premise.
 * It's OK to use "most scientists" colloquially in a case where there is broad agreement in the scientific community which is referenced and objectively malleable based one new information
 * Why is that only okay in your very limited example criteria? Why not in a situation when multiple reliable sources indicate the vague "scientists" or "experts" or "virologists" "agree the zoonosis is the most likely explanation"? All of these are fairly summarized in the current language.
 * Wikipedia is not in the business of adjudicating truth. We reflect a fair summary of what our sources say. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Some recent research
Courtier-Orgogozo "SARS-CoV-2 infection at the Huanan seafood market"Based on available evidence, we suggest that several early infections at the Huanan market may have occurred via human-to-human transmission in closed spaces such as canteens, Mahjong rooms or toilets. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122010295

Frutos "There is no “origin” to SARS-CoV-2" To date there is no experimental data to support a spillover of SARS-CoV-2 from any animal species. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935121014742

Domingo "An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2" Although most data certainly point to a natural origin, the intermediate host has not been found, and the hypothesis of a laboratory-leak has not been yet scientifically discarded. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512201458X

Flegr "Thus spoke peptides: SARS-CoV-2 spike gene evolved in humans and then shortly in rats while the rest of its genome in horseshoe bats and then in treeshrews" we can suggest that the small hexapeptide T-distance between both SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 and the treeshrew indicates that both of these viruses were recently shortly passaged in the treeshrew. This animal is relatively cheap and easily bred in captivity. Moreover, it is phylogenetically related to primates, which is why it is kept in many medical research laboratories [Citation23]. In virological laboratories, treeshrews are often kept for the purpose of serial passage of viruses. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2022.2057010

Hassan "Non-uniform aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 intraspecies evolution reopen question of its origin" Such atypical characteristics have contributed to the resurfacing of the question of the origin of the SARS-CoV-2. So far, no clear animal progenitor or intermediary host has been confirmed. Therefore, in light of these observations, the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 originated as a leak from the Wuhan lab is taken seriously now. Primarily, a zoonotic source was thought to have spilled over to humans through the ‘wet market’ in Wuhan, China, where the virus was first detected in December 2019 [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. But later, several other orthogonal hypotheses reverted to the old question about the SARS-CoV-2 origin [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. It is clear that although it is very likely that SARS-CoV-2 has zoonotic roots and originated as a result of a transition between bats and humans, the available data also suggest that this transition is most likely to have necessitated an intermediate animal. Importantly, this view does not tell whether the spillover happened in an open environment setting or within a laboratory, as many virology laboratories use animal models. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141813022021158 Sennalen (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtier-Orgogozo is from November 2022, not exactly recent. It's from before the recent evidence about animal DNA was described.Frutos (the one you linked) is from May 2022, and I believe already referenced heavily in the article.Domingo is also from 2022 (December) and thus out of date and from before more recent findings.Fiegr is a primary reference and thus not suitable for our purposes.Hassan is also a primary reference and thus not suitable for our purposes.What is the point of compiling these lower-quality and out of date references? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Peer-reviewed articles are going to be several months behind preprints. Should we be giving more priority to recent preprints? Should we start deprecating all the sources in the article older than this January? How about David Gorski's super-expert self-published blog? The goal-posts here are mounted on rocket skates. Sennalen (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that using these to invalidate the comments in the sections above would make no sense. If you are interested in just integrating some of these ideas outside of what was discussed in those sections...be my guest, we can, as always, all follow WP:BRD in that. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)