Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 10

"Journalists have been arrested for allegedly spreading fake news about the pandemic."
Hello,

The information seems to come from, one the "UN Humans Rights Office of the High Commisionner". The text is named as follow "Asia: Bachelet alarmed by clampdown on freedom of expression during COVID-19"

You can look at it by yourself, but here is an interesting quote :

"The High Commissioner recognised the need to restrict harmful misinformation or disinformation to protect public health, or any incitement of hatred towards minority groups, but said this should not result in purposeful or unintentional censorship, which undermines trust. “While Governments may have a legitimate interest in controlling the spread of misinformation in a volatile and sensitive context, this must be proportionate and protect freedom of expression,” Bachelet said.

In Bangladesh, dozens of people are reported to have had cases filed against them or have been arrested under the Digital Security Act in the last three months for allegedly spreading misinformation about COVID-19 or criticizing the Government response"

The first modfiaction to do would be to source the claim. I would also suggest modifying the phrase in order to precise these people weren't always arrested because of spreading misinformation but also sometimes for opposing government response Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech-ScienceAddict (talk • contribs) 23:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Fake tests
I cannot edit the article. Please add: https://factcheck.afp.com/hoax-circulates-online-switzerland-has-officially-confirmed-coronavirus-tests-are-fake. CutePeach (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Biden asks Americans to wear masks for just his first 100 days in office (until ~ 1 May 2021)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-call-for-masks-first-100-days-in-office-inauguration/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55182309

https://www.cnn.com › biden-harris-interview-covid-mask

https://people.com/politics/joe-biden-ask-americans-wear-masks-for-first-100-day-in-office/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/among-first-acts-biden-to-call-for-100-days-of-mask-wearing

Drsruli (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And which of these sources calls this misinformation? From a quick glance, these seem to indicate Biden was engaging in wishful thinking and hoping that masks along with other factors would reduce the pandemic to a level that masks would not be needed for more than 100 days. Linking a request to wear masks to misinformation passes the duck test for WP:SYNTH, IMHO... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, there's a significant difference between a changing promise from an elected official (in this case, likely as much to do with changing circumstance that couldn't be predicted, namely B.1.1.7) and misinformation. Unless there's misinformation that Biden is asking people not to mask after the 100th day, I don't see how this fits. See also: "15 days to slow the spread" not on this page. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2021
The Wuhab Lab leak origin hypothosis does (no longer) belong here. At this point it should get it's own Wikipedia page that is more neutral and does not assume it to be misinformation beforehand.

Although there is no credible expert that says the theory has been proven, there are now a couple of credible experts including the director of the CDC at the time of the start of the pandemic (Robert Redfield) that say it is likely enough to be taken seriously as an origin of the virus. In the specific case of Robert Redfield he even told CNN that he believes that (At this point) it is a more likely origin of the virus than a natural bat derived virus origin.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/03/26/sanjay-gupta-exclusive-robert-redfield-coronavirus-opinion-origin-sot-intv-newday-vpx.cnn

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-idUSKBN2BU2J2

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56581246

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-wuhan-scientists-initially-worried-coronavirus-leaked-lab-2021-3?international=true&r=US&IR=T 80.61.240.85 (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * . Already discussed at length. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

New Slate interview with MIT/Harvard genetic engineer on lab leak theory
https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/covid-lab-leak-theory-pandemic-research.html

Make of this what you will. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Undo revert. This is new information from a reliable source that is relevant to the ongoing discussion over whether the lab leak theory belongs in this article. It was wrong of RandomCanadian to remove it. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)!
 * You've been told about a half-billion times that the popular press is not acceptable to challenge the scientific consensus. WP:DROPTHESTICK, or assume the consequences, this is beyond disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no 100 % scientific consensus that excludes the laboratory hypothesis. This is not possible at the present stage of research. Laboratories are per se not research subjects - and therefore strict scientific standards do not apply here. As far as the Wuhan laboratory publications are concerned, they themselves provide enough evidence - which at least does not exclude the laboratory hypothesis. Here you can find a lot of the Wuhan publications. The laboratory issue is a major topic of the world public and as in other WP articles we should and must quote quite serious media here e.g. NZZ and reflect the public discussion. This is not only an issue of science but also of international politics for e.g. between China and the USA. Wikipedia is also not a forum to spread unverified Chinese stories of state propaganda - that the Labor hypothesis under misinformation fits very well into the logic of the Chinese Communist Party. The deep freeze thesis would certainly fit better here - as a possible hypothesis.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "This is not only an issue of science but of politics". So stop conflating the science with the politics. As for claims of state propaganda, we might just as well mention that the prime spreader of misinformation on COVID is no one else but the man in orange. And the lab theory was much supported by him and his enablers, so I don't see why we should give any more credence to it than to the Chinese frozen food hypothesis. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The swiss NZZ unraveld Peter Daszaks role in the "gain of function" research with Shi Zhengli in the Wuhan-Lab since 2015 and his role as one of the initiators of the "Lancet" article from 18 Feb. 2020. He and Kristian G. Andersen more or less bullying people on Twitter ever since, doesnt create scientific consensus either. The lab leak theory can not be ruled out. Alexpl (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Trolls/covidiots/conspiracy theorists posting on twitter about minority hypothesis does not override science in reputable journals, which you can get a sampling of at WP:NOLABLEAK. That the virus was a genetic manipulation is long discredited by those, too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  20:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Anything clear - you agree with this position WP:NOLABLEAK: User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak - sorry without strong causal evidence -this is a conspiration theory.It is the same mistake to say - the laboratory thesis is 100% correct. How do you already know this ? Private rules do not play a role here. "So stop conflating the science with the politics" - One has to be blind not to see - that the laboratory thesis is a highly political issue. The scientific investigation of the laboratory thesis was explicitly excluded (= forbidden) by China - this has less to do with science, but with politics. Who does not understand this - has understood factually nothing.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're again misrepresenting. I never said the lab leak was not political. I said we should not confuse the political aspect (governments blaming China et al.) with the scientific aspect (most subject-matter expert scientists support natural zoonosis). But obviously you're too busy arguing that it should be dealt as a purely political matter (which it most definitively shouldn't) to grasp the science - you've clearly not read any of the scientific papers linked from that page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't understand the relationship between politics and science in China - the CP decides about truth of the origin, the corona virus in china - not science. "The People's Republic of China," says Basel-based China expert Ralph Weber in DW, "tries to control how we think and talk about China. There should only be good stories about China!" It doesn't seem to sound good when, in the Corona children's book "A Corona Rainbow for Anna and Moritz," Moritz, an elementary school student, says, "The virus comes from China and has spread from there all over the world." and "But that also includes telling people in China that things aren't going so well in Europe. That Europe is a discontinued model, that it has failed, that democracy as practiced in Europe doesn't work." In this way, he said, the People's Republic puts itself in a good light and makes "a kind of authoritarianism" socially acceptable." The French scientific study shows clearly that there is neither for the natural nor the artificial origin - at present evidences. You do not understand that.....--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're overly naive. Every large power on the global scene engages/engaged in questionable things ((formerly) British imperialism, Russia/USSR, China? Yes check.svg Check USA? Yes check.svg Yes, too ). We shouldn't trust the politicians on matters that are clearly political and diplomatic posturing - hence why you've been repeatedly asked for MEDRS and you've only provided very weak sources. But we're going in circles and I'm tired of talking to a wall so enough of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

China has engaged in hard-core misinformation on COVID 19 and the WHO investigation has been a victim of non-transparency. You have to be very naive not to see this. For you, China is the land of free science - you have to be very naive to believe such fairy tales--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Three things: Primo, that is not what I said, and you are deliberately trying to get a reaction (I said we shouldn't trust politicians of any kind, not just china). Secundo, your opinion is WP:OR and you should stop with the vague personnal attacks. Tertio. I'm done here and will not be further replying to such blatant trolling. Over. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

, our colleagues and  have expressed a viewpoint opposing yours and provided articles from reliable sources Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Deutsche Welle to support their arguments. I agree with their viewpoint and I don’t agree with the unsupported claims made in the WP:NOLABLEAK essay. Calling them trolls is a personal attack. Tagging. CutePeach (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So you disagree with MEDRS? Already know that: not my problem. As to the trolling you are obviously misrepresenting the scope of this - I was only referring to ES and their comments calling me "naive" and deliberately misrepresenting what I said (from the usual WP:SPA, really). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't stuff words in other people's mouths. Nobody said they disagree with MEDRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They expressly said they "don’t agree with the unsupported claims made in the WP:NOLABLEAK essay" - opinions aside, that essay also has User:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak. So yes, they are pretty much saying "Slate, Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Deutsche Welle are reliable sources for this but MEDRS are not"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan Laboatory and Biosecurity
There is no "established consensus" - not in science, not in the states/politics, not in the WHO, not in public opin(media) -and not here. It is still no evidence about true or false possible - about none of the hypotheses. China has banned or is censoring any publication on the labor problem - i.e. there will be no more publications here with COVID-10 reference, only what China do for biosecurity. But the scientific publications, also this from 2019: "Current status and future challenges of high-level biosafety laboratories in China" are in clear contradiction with the statements of the authorities that the laboratories are - safe - in China.
 * One giant whopper in the above discussion caught my eye: "Laboratories are per se not research subjects - and therefore strict scientific standards do not apply here". The topic of where and how the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus first entered the human population is an unambiguous biomedical topic and thus WP:MEDRS applies. If anyone has a MEDRS-compliant source that would lead us to change the content of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 they should post the source at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Free clue: an article in Slate does not qualify. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The laboratory lack question is a biosafety and biosecurity issue - if the coronavirus came from the laboratory - for this all safety standards would have to be looked for - with special audits. It is well known -also in scientifc publication -that China has major deficits here: There is a pressing need to improve the regulatory standards system. In particular, policy research units and administrative departments should work together to propose necessary and prompt revisions of regulatory measures for biosafety, providing support and guidance for the development of synthetic biology, gene editing, and biological resource preservation and utilization. Moreover, biosafety laws are urgently needed.". The question of natural origin belongs first of all to animal virology. This is also what all the WHO investigations have referred to also to molecular biology. Then comes the human being (medicine), unless the virus would have originated directly in the human being, which can be ruled out.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The origin of the virus is a bio-medical claim and has important consequences in preventing future such outbreaks (notably as to questions of monitoring wild animals and human interactions with them). Since you seem to have found a scientific, MEDRS compatible source about biosafety, would you mind investigating and seeing if they say anything specifically about COVID (that article you cite is from September 2019, and while it makes a generic but urgent call for better legislation, any link to COVID would be blatant WP:SYNTH)? That would be much better than arguing based on the popular press, which is prone to misinterpretations and false balance due to politics. Unless and until such time that there are appropriate sources disputing the established consensus, though, this matter can be closed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't even need to go WP:SYNTH. Despite the low probability as a source for COVID, the WHO report recommended: Regular administrative and internal review of high-level biosafety laboratories worldwide. At which point, it's about WP:DUE again. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is link to the actual WHO Laboratory biosafety manual, 4th edition and concerning COVID 19.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"*3.2. Inadequate biosafety management systems:

Since the promulgation and implementation of “Regulations on Biosafety Management of Pathogenic Microorganism Laboratories,” issued by State Council in 2004, a series of other regulations have been formulated by different ministries and local governments. These have considered the examination and approval of laboratory construction and accreditation, authorization of research activities, as well as pathogen, waste, and laboratory animal management regulations. Although these regulations wholesomely cover all aspects of construction, management, and eventual operation of BSLs, their enforcement still needs to be strengthened. Furthermore, due to different investment sources, affiliations, and management systems, the implementation of these laboratories faces difficulties converging objectives and cooperation workflows. This scenario puts laboratory biosafety at risk since the implementation efficiency and timely operations are relatively compromised. Depending on the size and location, building a modern BSL costs millions of US dollars, and in China the funds for construction are typically raised by the state, local governments, upstream authorities, and institutions. Additionally, 5–10% of construction costs are needed for annual operation. However, the maintenance cost is generally neglected; several high-level BSLs have insufficient operational funds for routine yet vital processes. Due to the limited resources, some BSL-3 laboratories run on extremely minimal operational costs or in some cases none at all.12 In the process of BSL construction, operation, and management, highly skilled professional teams from diverse disciplines such as architectural science, materials science, aerodynamics, automatic controlling, environmental science, microbiology, botany, biosafety, and systems engineering are required. In addition, biosafety measures and practices are vital in daily laboratory operations hence a highly qualified, motivated, and skilled biosafety supervisor is needed not only for overseeing solid containment but also in laboratory risk management. Currently, most laboratories lack specialized biosafety managers and engineers. In such facilities, some of the skilled staff is composed by part-time researchers. This makes it difficult to identify and mitigate potential safety hazards in facility and equipment operation early enough. Nonetheless, biosafety awareness, professional knowledge, and operational skill training still need to be improved among laboratory personnel."
 * 3.3. Insufficient resources for efficient laboratory operation
 * 3.4. Deficiency of professional capacity

There is scientific evidence that labs in China have safety problems - and yes, this is part of COVID 19 - the biosafety law was strengthened because of COVID 19 by Chinas President himself already in February 2021- see this scientific publication !--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. We can mention that "Chinese biosafety law was strengthened as a result of the pandemic" - this seems broadly consistent with what is already said in some sources, that highlighted biosafety issues (not unique to China or anywhere else, me thinks) when dealing with biomedical hazards without making unfounded hypotheses. That doesn't alter anything about the hypothesis of a lab leak being itself unfounded speculation. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to add it but the source you give is clearly identified as a "blog" and is written by a law firm; in addition to it's entirely non-neutral tone towards the Chinse government. The only other source that wasn't a Chinese news outlet (highly susceptible to being a front for government propaganda) was the Chinese ministry of health itself (see last edit on article, I have commented it in), which isn't that much better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Now at RSN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That there are massive biosafety problems in the Wuhan laboratory was known earlier - there was even an article in Nature- Inside the Chinese lab poised to study world's most dangerous pathogens - from a governmental-Chinese point of view, the laboratory hypothesis is very unlikely - from a scientific point of view regarding biosafety, that is shown by the scientific publications - definitely not.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What's not clear about "Editors’ note, January 2020: Many stories have promoted an unverified theory that the Wuhan lab discussed in this article played a role in the coronavirus outbreak that began in December 2019. Nature knows of no evidence that this is true; scientists believe the most likely source of the coronavirus to be an animal market."? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Empiricus-sextus: You're free to have the opinions you want to about the connection therein. Until the scientific consensus is that that connection should be made - meaning that a majority of reliable medical sources make that determination, we will not include that view as the "consensus view". I will point out here that you are displaying the exact reason that this is considered "misinformation" - you are grasping at multiple dubious/unrelated/unreliable claims and trying to use them to say that the hypothesis is more reliable than it really is. Until multiple reliable medical sources say that that is related to COVID - which they haven't yet, because otherwise you'd be able to easily find and link us to them - which you haven't done yet - until that happens, we won't say it is linked in Wikipedia voice. We don't try and connect things ourself - that is synthesis and original research and is not permitted. If you cannot provide a link to a MEDRS that explicitly states something about the lab leak hypothesis that's not already included, then you need to stop wasting people's time here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this page for some time now, and it's stunning how the goalposts are continually shifted by those who do not want the lab leak hypothesis talked about. First, it was said that the lab leak hypothesis needed to have some evidence, any evidence, to demonstrate it was not a disinformative conspiracy theory dreamed up by lunatics. Then, the goalposts shifted, and it was claimed that reliable evidence was needed before anyone could speak of the lab leak hypothesis. Now, you have actually said that a majority of reliable medical sources will need to support the lab leak hypothesis before it can be mentioned on Wikipedia! I will not elaborate further, as (respectfully and intending no offense) this discussion has become prima facie absurd.2600:1700:FE20:2390:AC0E:8C65:A040:2209 (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Watching is not enough: you need to actually read it. I copy here the crucial sentence of which you quoted only the first half: Until [..] a majority of reliable medical sources make that determination, we will not include that view as the "consensus view".
 * So, nobody said that a majority of sources is needed for just mentioning the lab leak idea. Actually, the lab leak fans actually want it not to be mentioned here, since this article is about misinformation and they think is is information, but I will ignore that and assume you mean "mention it in other articles, as a serious hypothesis".
 * Also, I searched the archives for the phrase "any evidence" and did not find any place where anybody demanded "some evidence, any evidence". But, assuming someone actually said something like this, did you really assume that there would be a consensus among Wikipedia users to add anything to an article, let alone a medical article, based on unreliable evidence? Dream on.
 * Those "shifting goalposts" are a hallucination of yours. They have remained in the same place all the time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. The "goalposts" are, and always have been the WP:PAGs, and ay editor going against them can get taken to WP:AIN where the uninvolved community as a whole can consider the matter and any miscreants sanctioned. This has happened a few times already. There's a good summary of how policies apply at WP:NOLABLEAK. It's my impression that there are some true believers out there who are seriously deluded about Wikipedia and the lab leak because ... they have to be to keep their beliefs alive. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have only answered the Bio Wooper question above and quoted four scientific publications regarding biosafety in China here. There is a very complex discussion also in relation to COVID 19 (we not discussed here) - all this has nothing directly to do with medicine and missinformation - but without the clarification and testing of the biosafety issues, one can neither verify nor falsify the laboratory thesis. A completely different question is whether it is a natural or artificial virus. It was only about a differentiated clarification - without this necessarily having to be in the article, possibly in another article. I was not interested in a synthesis here, but only in presenting the scientific discussion on laboratory safety in China. These are scientific results or statements - what you and I think about it is indeed a personal opinion. But that does not play a role here.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Without going into detail here, the biosafety and biosecurity issue of laboratories (connected with COVID 19) is massively on the international agenda - certainly not without reason. See also International Federation of Biosafety Associations.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that has nothing to do with the origins of the virus. To quote from your first link "In the absence of sufficient biosafety and biosecurity, there remains an increased risk of accidental or deliberate infections and releases of SARS-CoV-2. These capacity limitations, either due to preexisting gaps or a lapse occurring due to the mounting pressure on the system, are detrimental to safety, security, and operational efficiency." - pretty clear this is in relation to research efforts on the virus (and not its origin). Any link between these statements and the unfounded hypothesis have no place here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to clarify with this contribution that the investigation of the laboratory leaks can be clarified primarily with audits and special procedures for biosafety. There was no mandate for this in the WHO mission - China did not want this and did not provide any documents and data here, not even on the state of illness of the laboratory staff. The following position applies to China (Embassy): "Aus dem Hochsicherheitslabor kann nichts nach außen dringen, was nicht nach außen dringen darf."/ "Nothing can leak out of the high-security lab that shouldn't leak out."....This is also the implicit position of the English Wikipedia -which I think is a little to simple !--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is your own connecting of information that reliable sources are not connecting. You're attempting to connect things to form text/views that Wikipedia should cover - and that's not permitted. Again - if you cannot provide a MEDRS that claims that the "lab leak hypothesis" holds any theory, it will not be covered as anything other than a fringe view/conspiracy. If you cannot provide that MEDRS that directly makes that claim/connection, then your other links are not appropriate for this article, because this is about COVID-19, not about lab leaks, or lab security, or things like that. You don't get to just say "I think this is connected" - reliable sources must make that connection. Please stop wasting peoples' time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The laboratory hypothesis (if the Virus break out the institute) can be scientifically clarified only in the context of biosecurity issues. The scientific publications cited here only show the biosecurity situation in China before the pandemic outbreak - and also the response of the chinese state. These are not "several dubious/unrelated/unreliable claims" - but scientifically proven facts. Substantially here I could indicate still substantially several sources. Decisive is only that here internationally renowned scientists of top institutions (Open Letter to the WHO COVID-19 International Investigation Team), published form the New York Times as well as statements like the USA (U.S. Department of State: Joint Statement on the WHO-Convened COVID-19 Origins Study) demand indeepened investigations, which clarify the biosafety question of the Wuhan institute. That there are many biosafety problems and accidents of laboratories, is described here in the Wikipedia extensively - List of accidents and incidents involving laboratory biosecurity. However, these are usually not published in scientific publications such as MEDRS, but in public media. Such incidents also occurred in Wuhan (before 2020) and were documented by Chinese media. That there are outbreaks from high security laboratories (even of pandemics) is an international scientific consensus - “The idea of an accidental release of a potentially pandemic flu virus cannot be completely written off.” (Nature 510, 443 (26 June 2014), doi:10.1038/510443a). There has also been a very broad discussion in the U.S. and also in Europe on how possible accidents can be avoided (The Cambridge Working Group).


 * I fully agree with you that MEDRIS must be the central source for all medical questions concerning COVID 19, but this question is about biosafety and this is in the end a more or less technical problem, of course also a political one. We will never see any study In terms of strict evidence-based medicine here. It is the wrong methodology to answer this question. For this reason, we have no choice but to consult other reliable sources.


 * I understand very well that we use MEDRS here, but to classify everything that is not MEDRES (incl. positions of states and WHO) as a conspiracy theory, so to speak, contradicts all our WP rules. If you don't know anything about biosafety, you should better not respond here. I see you are a proven expert in medicine but this is a biosafety issue for which other scientific backgrounds are relevant. If we don't include this, it remains as here with opinions personal opinions, yes even with the risk of misinformation by Wikipedia - for this reason the context of the scientific and technical biosafety discussion is central. This also requires sources other than MEDRS. The idological equation of the laboratory hypothesis with conspiracy theory (Again - if you cannot provide a MEDRS that claims that the "lab leak hypothesis" holds any theory, it will not be covered as anything other than a fringe view/conspiracy) is not verifiable according to the current state of investigation, science and international discussion. Unless you assume that the WHO director, various scientists, serious media, as well as 14 government leaders are conspiracy theorists.


 * There are not a few scientists who currently speak of the worst case of coordinated misleading of the general public on the question of the origin of the coronavirus pandemic - as I said, I also see this risk in the English Wikipedia. Clearly we need to clarify conspiracy theories, but to subsume the whole international laboratory discussion under this is total misleading. Dear colleague I do not want to waste your time here, but we need a neutral balanced article on this very fundamental issue. Basically the discussion is so complex that it makes no sense here and we need - I suggest this solution - an additional article on the controversy of the laboratory hypothesis including biosecurity topics !--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You're still in the realm of WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK. No separate article on the lab leak (already ruled out by a previous MfD) and no arguing based on inferences: you've been presented with a boatload of MEDRS; none of them argue in favour of this. If you can't present sources, then your opinion is irrelevant. MEDRS is definitively the correct thing to use: this is the origin of a human virus; and it has a dramatic impact on prevention of future outbreaks. As for your misinterpretation of WHO statements and the rest, that had also already been addressed. "the whole international laboratory discussion". Now you'll all do us a favour and instead of continuing your current behaviour, you'll either A) find serious MEDRS sources which argue for this (unlikely, as despite multiple injunctions to multiple previous editors none have managed to do so), or B) you'll stop bludgeoning the process and not listening. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2021
"change Phenomenom to Phenomenon" Fix typo 31.41.45.190 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - thanks for pointing that out. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2021 (2)
"change asymtomatic to asymptomatic" Fix typo

"Change empty space near bottom to Authority control" Add content 31.41.45.190 (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - also done these - thanks for pointing out the typos. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions
Is it just me, or does the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions section only contain claims that TCM treatments are effective against Covid-19 with no mention of the fact that they actually aren't? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * China is promoting coronavirus treatments based on unproven traditional medicines --Nature
 * Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine" --Quackwatch
 * Beijing proposes law to ban criticism of traditional Chinese medicine ==British Medical Journal
 * TCM for COVID-19 --Science-Based Medicine
 * Well, from context (the name of this article) one can conclude that these claims are misinformation. But still, it would be nice if the text actually said it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak discussion at SARS-CoV-2
Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2. Discussion on how much due weight to give to the "lab leak" idea in the Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

New SBM article on "lab leak" misinformation
There is a new article up on Science Based Medicine about the origins of SARS-COVS-2, and relevent to this page is the discussion they have regarding misinformation, and how certain claims are repeated as evidence for a lab origin when they are not. As usual with SBM, it is RS but not peer-reviewed, so only useful for coverage of fringe topics, but they do include links to peer-reviewed literature to explain their reasoning, so that may be useful as well. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) Didn't realize that Alexbrn had already started a section on the SBM article. I'm obviously not the only editor who follows SBM. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See above. Already added and removed, predictably, as not having an acceptable POV. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information
Contributors to this article may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information about the breadth of WP:MEDRS. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times
This story from The New York Times is very informative: --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation
 * It is an interesting article. It may be useful for documenting various financial and social connections between various individuals, and for documenting how misinformation spreads.  I would just caution that as per WP:MEDRS we need to take care to only use Hyperion35 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that this is the article on misinformation, this is precisely the kind of source that would provide context on the proliferation of said misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Experimental vaccines
I have removed this:

Claims that mRNA vaccines are still experimental
There is a claim that mRNA vaccines are still experimental. mRNA vaccines have been used by over 8 million people. At the moment there is no evidence of the development of autoimmune diseases.

because the answer depends on exactly how you define "experimental". In a scientific model, a thing stops being experimental when we know whether it works. But in a legal/regulatory framework, a vaccine stops being experimental when the government(s) say so. Most vaccines are not fully authorized, which means they're "experimental" in that sense. I think it is best for this article not to address this complex question at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They aren't experimental even in the legal/regulatory framework - they're "unapproved". Unapproved doesn't mean experimental and this is actually the reason for the misinformation - they're authorized under emergency use authorization (though Pfizer has filed for full authorization) but that doesn't mean the same as "experimental". I agree that this sort of misinformation should be handled very carefully here if at all, but if it is covered here it should be made clear that "experimental" isn't a legal framework - and as such, calling something "experimental" has nothing to do with the authorization (emergency, full, or lack of any) whatsoever. Many experimental drugs aren't authorized at all - some are authorized fully while still clinically experimental (ex: under "fast to market" schemes for orphan drugs), and more. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Unapproved" isn't really accurate either, since they do have regulatory approval under the emergency use authorization. If you are looking for a good way to explain this using non-technical language, you might consider calling it "fast track approval", as it's somewhat similar to the way that some cancer chemotherapies get approved for use earlier than they might otherwise be used.  It's important to emphasize that the use of these vaccines is explicitly authorized under law, there is no ambiguity about this, they simply applied for authorization under an expedited schedule that allowed for them to cut through some of the red tape and administrative delays.  "Experimental" would imply either no FDA authorization, or that they were still going through the required HCTs.  In this case they have already done the required HCTs, they're merely given emergency authorization to expedite their use until the full paperwork goes through.  I can check the FDA website tomorrow for the full sources on the regulatory situation to back this up, but in the meantime, this is the best non-technical explanation I can think of. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Link: The FDA themselves calls them unapproved because "approval" refers to unconditional approval in the US. An emergency use authorization is not the same as "approval". True "fast track" approval has occurred in the EU where the Pfizer vaccine (and some others) have obtained full approval through an accelerated timeline. In the US, that doesn't exist - they are not approved, they are merely authorized for use during the emergency. If the COVID pandemic came to a halt tomorrow randomly, the vaccines would still be able to be used in the EU forever - because they have approval there. That is not the case in the US. The EUA expires when the emergency is over - unless full approval is granted. The "full paperwork" wasn't even initiated on the Pfizer vaccine until this past week - and it hasn't been initiated for any of the other vaccines with the FDA yet at all. It's a very complex and complicated situation that takes a long time to explain - but there has been a lot of misinformation where the vaccines are classified as "experimental". They aren't "experimental" - which means that it is under testing - but they also aren't fully approved and are still "emergency use only". That's where a lot of the misinformation gains traction - because of poor understanding of "anything that isn't fully approved is 'experimental' and bad". But at the same time, we must be certain not to overstate the approval of the vaccines in an attempt to clarify/combat this misinformation - they aren't approved - but they aren't experimental - they're in between. I don't think saying "until the full paperwork goes through" is a good idea - because that implies that it was "accelerated" which it wasn't. The full paperwork requires a lot more work than an emergency use authorization - but a full paperwork approval would enable it to be used even after the pandemic is no longer an emergency situation in the US. Remember that this is the misinformation article - we should focus solely on those making unfounded claims that even with an EUA they are still "experimental" - and we should only discuss regulatory framework to show that they are not experimental. We do not need to explain here the entire framework and what the different levels/terms mean. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is, as WAID says, the range of meaning for "experimental". The misinformation is not about the technical truth but invokes a narrative of "they're running a giant experimenting on people!". It could be hard to unpack this without a source that does just that. Perhaps this could be useful for false claims about the nature of mRNA vaccines? Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Origins of SARS-CoV-2
Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021
I think it would be more appropriate to change "his or her" to "their" under in the "xenophobic attacks" part of the article. Typhlosionator (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased from "his or her ethnicity" to "the victim's ethnicity," to be more specific. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Typhlosionator (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The driving adverb behind this.
Nothing in the talk page nor the article mentions the important question, why. Why is misinformation spreading? Is it spreading faster, if so why? Why are once reasonable persons now believing things like the vaccines will make you autistic and prime you for mind control? I am genuinely curious about this issue, it goes beyond the article in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caustic3 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, beyond what's already in each section, there's not a ton of scholarly information as to why - that's going to take years after this is over for people to be surveyed after the fact to ask them "why did you believe this then and why do you still or not now believe it". Many of the subsections go into who's been spreading the misinformation - and that's really all we can say at this point. It's not appropriate for us to, in an article, speculate on the "why" when reliable sources can't tell us yet - thus it's also not appropriate for us to discuss it here because we'd really just be speculating. If there's reliable sources you can provide on the "why", it'd be good to link them here so we can discuss including them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's that NYT article I added recently about echo-chambers and stuff, but not much else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * To some extent this isn't answerable, at least not as a "why" question. We can answer "who" in some cases, where there is documented evidence of individuals and groups promoting certain claims.  It is also important to emphasize that this isn't new, anti-vax hysteria has been around for decades, the most prominent example might be Andrew Wakefield's discredited and retracted Lancet paper.  There has been previous evidence that belief in conspiracy theories tends to correlate with anti-vaccine beliefs, as well as broader belief in so-called "alternative medicine".  And of course, hysterical conspiracy theories have often surrounded diseases.  In medieval Europe it was pretty common to blame Jews for supposedly poisoning wells every time there was a cholera outbreak, for example.  Now, finding good documented evidence from reliable sources is difficult, not the least because we're essentially looking for a reliable secondary source to report on what is by definition an jnreliabke primary source.  Science Based Medicine has published a few articles examining the role of conspiracy theories in this pandemic that might be helpful. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those two articles make interesting links with pre-existing conspiracy groups, but they're essentially editorials and opinion pieces. Does SBM have enough of a reputation that we could cite them (with attribution if required)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why I closed the discussion earlier. It's an unanswerable question right now. We can point Caustic3 at our Conspiracy theory page, which has some reasoning why that kind of thing happens, or Vaccine hesitancy which goes into the history of this... but we don't have enough resources to answer why people are spreading misinformation specifically about COVID-19 yet. All we can do is speculate, which is WP:FORUM material. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSPSS Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. Basically, we should be careful about citing actual biomedical info from them (but SBM almost always provides links to the sources for any biomedical claims, so use those sources instead), but for reporting on quackery and fringe stuff, they are a reliable source, and in some cases one of the few reliable sources that covers these topics.  So for example they covered one of the most prominent researchers who promoted hydroxychloroquine as a supposed treatment for COVID-19, and so we could use them as a source for how the researcher misrepresented and promoted hydroxychloroquine.  To the extent that they cover actual real treatments for COVID-19, or research that showed that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective, we'd be better off citing the peer-reviewed research that they cite. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Skeptic subs?
r/NoNewNormal definitely warrants a mention. Maybe r/CoronavirusCircleJerk too, and also r/FuckMasks (although the latter has been banned already). We're not going back to brunch! Skippy2520 (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a reddit thing right? Does reddit misinformation get mentioned in reliable sources? Those would be needed. Alexbrn (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are Reddit forums (known as subReddits). Without reliable third-party discussion of them, we can't really include them in the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously we don't need to link to the top conspiracy theory sub-reddits here. They don't support any information in the article, and probably fail the external link policy. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation in India

 * "The Ministry of AYUSH [Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy] has been a nuisance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perhaps it has always been a nuisance but during the pandemic, while any other ministry might have stepped carefully, avoided panic and guided the sick and the confused through uncertainty, the Ministry of AYUSH has been doing the opposite. In fact, its decisions in this time are so far removed from the established precepts of practising medicine that it’s reasonable to wonder if its only agenda is to do the opposite of what is right. First, there was the ill-considered advisory to consume untested substances prepared according to homeopathic and purportedly Ayurvedic recipes, and which the ministry said could cure a disease that we don’t fully understand even in November 2020 but which the ministry had presumed ancient Indians had known everything about. Then there were dubious claims that Prince Charles had recovered from COVID-19 using Ayurvedic medicine, the AYUSH minister choosing to be treated the allopathic way when he got COVID-19, and a glut of other recommendations from the ministry about using herbal remedies to evade the novel coronavirus... Ayurveda and homeopathy quacks are often prone to claim their methods are 'scientific' and that they follow the scientific method. But it’s impossible for these systems of medicine to be verified by science because the way they obtain, organise and validate knowledge is entirely different." For Sick Indians, Modi Government's Ayurvedic 'Surgery' Order is the Unkindest Cut --The Wire (India)

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Indian health ministry has begun to recommend traditional remedies to tackle the country’s COVID-19 outbreak, dismaying many Indian doctors and scientists. On 6 October, health minister Harsh Vardhan released recommendations for preventing COVID-19 and treating mild cases based on Ayurveda, India’s millennia old system of herbal medicine, triggering sharp criticism from the Indian Medical Association (IMA), a group of more than one-quarter of a million modern medicine practitioners. In a press release, IMA demanded Vardhan produce evidence of the treatments’ efficacy; if he’s unable to do so, the association wrote, Vardhan is 'inflicting a fraud on the nation and gullible patients by calling placebos as drugs.' Recommending any drug without evidence for a deadly disease that has claimed more than 100,000 Indian lives is 'a dangerous trend,' adds C. S. Pramesh, a thoracic surgeon and the director of Mumbai’s Tata Memorial Centre." "A fraud on the nation": critics blast Indian government’s promotion of traditional medicine for COVID-19 --Science


 * In fact, its decisions in this time are so far removed from the established precepts of practising medicine that it’s reasonable to wonder if its only agenda is to do the opposite of what is right. I had simply assumed so from its name. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leak Again
See Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Science Letter
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1.full

"Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable." Letter published in Science, co-signed by Ralph Baric. That officially makes lab leak hypothesis not a conspiracy theory. Should be removed from this page. --Cowrider (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , something does not need to be a "conspiracy theory" to be misinformation. The way something is presented can cause something that is technically factual to be misinformation. As an example, if I said "voter fraud occurred in the 2020 election in the US", that's technically true - but if I spin it in a way that makes you think it was more than a couple individual cases of such, or if I try and say that it caused the election to be "stolen", that true fact becomes misinformation. Many politicians and even scientists have overstated the level of evidence for this theory - and in fact, there's a reason they said "both remain viable" - that was a carefully crafted language to imply that it's on the same level as the zoonotic origin - which it isn't. It's viable, but that's only because it takes years, if not decades, to conclusively prove one thing or another in this field - so the reason it's still "viable" is simply because more research needs done before we'll have the data to conclusively disprove it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's misinformation to say virus originated from a lab leak, because there is no direct evidence to support that conclusion. It is also misinformation to say virus originated from a zootonic spillover, because again there is no direct evidence to support this conclusion. Science will eventually figure it out. Right now both hypotheses are viable. We can argue over probabilities, but it's wrong to say the lab leak hypothesis is misinformation. It's a significant development that a preeminent group of Scientists have published this letter in one of the world's top 2 Scientific journals. These are experts in the field, and they are specifically calling the an "accidental lab release" a "viable" theory.--Cowrider (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It's not. Because the prevailing scientific consensus based on all information available highly suggests a zoonotic origin. As such, as long as someone doesn't say "it for sure is from animals", they're not spreading misinformation - they're in line with the scientific consensus. It's not a "preeminent group" either - it's a group that about half of them have no microbiological/epidemiological/medical background - and the other half is no more than a dozen scientists. On the other hand, we can find many dozens of actual medical/epidemiological professionals who disagree with that - as such, the scientific consensus is against them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a fringe group of Scientists (you might be thinking of another letter.) The letter's 18 authors collectively have over 4000 publications and over 494,000 citations, and have expertise relevant to the field. There are huge names in virology on this list, including Ralph Baric. This is a significant development in regard to the scientific consensus on virus origin.Cowrider (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)First, we can still document the existing misinformation that is circulating surrounding the idea of a laboratory leak. Secondly, that letter that you quote represents the opinion of a small number of scientists, it cites no evidence to support a laboratory leak, and merely calls for greater investigation.  Hyperion35 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "That officially makes lab leak hypothesis not a conspiracy theory." Unambiguous WP:SYNTH which, like the lab leak, as described by the vast majority of MEDRS, has no evidence to support it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't follow your reasoning. A letter published in one of the world's top 2 scientific journals, signed by some preeminent Scientists, including Ralph_S_Baric, say "theories of accidental release from a lab" remain "viable".--Cowrider (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not peer-reviewed. It's a letter to the editor. Those are not usually peer-reviewed AFAIK since they're more often than not statements of opinion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * .--Cowrider (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , source for this statement? It's not listed anywhere on the article that it was peer-reviewed for accuracy and scientific merit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewers are usually not listed with the publication. The source that Andersen reviewed the letter is the NYT . Note he merely reviewed the letter, he is not endorsing the contents, since Andersen is one of the leading proponents of proximal origins.--Cowrider (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Reviewed" is used in the NYT without the qualificative "Peer". This seems to be simply "review" in its more mundane meaning (Andersen gave an opinion on the letter - and to the NYT, not to the editors of Science - this seems to be borne out by his tweet - see below). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. "Reviewed" may just mean just mean Andersen read the letter and gave a comment to the NYT. It's still a significant development that (1) Science published this letter, and (2) that 18 prominent Scientists with expertise in the field put their name to it. Collectively they have over 4000 publications and over 494,000 citations. This represents a major shift on the view of the virus originCowrider (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weeelll... a letter you write does not become a reliable source by you having written for reliable sources 4000 times before. If they want their opinion to be quoted in Wikipedia articles, they should do studies that confirm it and publish those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no mention of peer review anywhere, and as I said I don't think letters to editors get peer review. There's only the editor's name. Even if your statement that the letter was peer reviewed was true (I'm quite confident it isn't), peer reviewers are generally not named or known, and Andersen's tweet here seems to indicate he doesn't quite agree with the entirety of the letter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two related but separate bits of misinformation here. The first, which is implied by the phrase "lab leak", is that the virus accidentally leaked from the lab. The second, which was the original misinformation from the YouTube conspiracy theorist who started it all in January 2020, is that the virus is a genetically engineered bioweapon that was purposely released by the Chinese government. Both appear to be misinformation, but only the second starts with a conspiracy theory. The first is often combined with another conspiracy theory -- that the Chinese government and the WHO conspired to cover up the accident. Thus, any "not a conspiracy theory" claim must specifically be about the bioweapon or the coverup actually being true, because those are the conspiracy theories. Claims that the accidental leak is actually true don't count, because the lab leak theory is misinformation but not a conspiracy theory. And even if someone proves it was an accidental leak there would remain a bunch of people who continue to believe the bioweapon and/or coverup conspiracy theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd go farther, only some information about an accidental lab leak is misinformation. Specifically, that which misrepresents the strength of evidence in its favor. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly.
 * I'd go farther, some information about a zoonosis hypothesis is misinformation. Specifically, that which misrepresents the strength of evidence in its favor.  Including claims of consensus in the scientific community. Zero data to support this. Anyone claiming scientific consensus is guilty of making this issue political:
 * "That opinion was seconded by Rear Admiral Kenneth Bernard, an epidemiologist and disease detective who served as the biodefense expert in the Clinton and George W. Bush White Houses. The letter, he says, 'is balanced, well written, and exactly reflects the opinion of every smart epidemiologist and scientist I know. If asked, I would have signed it myself.”
 * “We’re reasonable scientists with expertise in relevant areas,” Relman said, “and we don’t see the data that says this must be of natural origin.”
 * “Most of the discussion you hear about SARS-CoV-2 origins at this point is coming from, I think, the relatively small number of people who feel very certain about their views,” Dr. Bloom said. He added: “Anybody who’s making statements with a high level of certainty about this is just outstripping what’s possible to do with the available evidence.”
 * My previous generous attempt at consensus . My personal opinion is this section needs to go 'bye bye' replaced with a link to "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19"  Enough of this silliness. Dinglelingy (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And right there is the problem, some of it is BS conspiracy theorizing. So whilst the is an argument for re-writing there is not one for outright removal.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? Dinglelingy (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Its simple enough, we have some (arguably) hedge bet science (As in "there might be Something we are not sure, lets look") that hardly makes a string case for the lab leak. As well as a lot of conspiracy theories about it, thus we cannot remove the section, but there might be an argument for a re-write.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think that those quotes somehow negate the idea of a scientific consensensus surrounding the zoonotic hypothesis, then you may not understand how a scientific consensus works. The fact that one or two people said "there is no consensus" to a newspaper reporter does not carry anywhere near the weight that you think it does.  Especially compared to peer-reviewed primary and especially secondary sources, and the WHO report.  Beyond that, I have to question whether you understand why this is the scientific consensus, and I mean this beyond just being able to read through various sources.  Concerns over zoonotic episodes leading to lethal pandemics long predates COVID-19, public health officials have been looking into this for decades, it is why so many public health experts panicked over SARS and MERS and Bird Flu and Swine Flu.  Hyperion35 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between a "conspiracy theory" and "fringe theory", they are not synonymous.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is one fringe theory and two conspiracy theories. The fringe theory is that the virus was created in and leaked from a lab. The first conspiracy theory (the one that started this entire discussion) is that the the virus was created in the lab as a bioweapon and then deliberately released by the Chinese government, who for some inexplicable reason released it in China instead of, say New York or London. The second conspiracy theory is that the WHO and most other scientists have conspired with the Chinese government to cover up the accidental lab leak. This line of argument will be familiar to those who have run into similar "Ignore the scientists! They are all lying!" conspiracy theories associated with antivax, creationism, climate change, and holocaust denial.`Just because the fringe theory that isn't a conspiracy theory exists, that doesn't negate the clear evidence of the existence of the two related conspiracy theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be careful with 'created in' when referring to the WHO-evaluated theory which we're referring to as the 'alternate theoretical formulation'. The WHO ruled out intentional engineering and release, falling into the bioweapon conspiracy. This doesn't mean the virus that a person was inadvertently exposed to was identical to the one collected from bats, but 'created in' gives the impression of intentional manipulation, rather than the virus evolving on its own in culture. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be more apt to agree if you could provide strong WP:MEDRS sources (instead of WP:MEDPOP sources) to back up the claim that there isn't consensus that the most likely explanation is natural spillover (occurring outside a lab). Because we have multiple MEDRS reviews which make that conclusion, and need at least as strong sourcing to change the claim that it's the mainstream consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is one:
 * I see no 'data' in any peer reviewed MEDRS showing consensus. I see people claiming consensus, I see people assuming consensus.  I am totally fine with deferring to the language of the WHO sponsored study, the Director of the WHO's remarks on the study, and the recent Science letter.  But the only consensus I see is nearly everyone agreeing that both theories are valid and both need to be investigated. Claims beyond that are political.
 * With respect to the current page, "unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories regarding the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic.[27][28] One narrative describes the pandemic as the result of an accidental leakage of a coronavirus, another says that the virus was engineered as a bio-weapon."  Does that sound like the 'unintentional lab leak hypothesis' is a valid theory?  I don't think so.  The goal here should be to educate readers as to the distinction, not conflate the two as a conspiracy theory.  It's not unfounded anymore than zoonosis is, they both are lacking anything more than circumstantial evidence, that's why so many prestigious scientists in the field felt so compelled to make such a statement in a top journal.  The section is non NPOV and needs a major re-write.  I think wikipedia is just better served with a link to "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19".Dinglelingy (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "It's not unfounded anymore than zoonosis is" - exactly why the lab leak is here as misinformation. Both hypotheses are not equally accepted by MEDRS, as evidenced by the sources presented at WP:NOLABLEAK (and those on the talk page at User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak). They might both be "possible", but the fact that one is deemed "extremely unlikely" while the other is the de-facto consensus of sources (and some describe it as such) is indicative that one should be treated as an idea falling under WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE ("plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  16:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , as a single-purpose account, your opinion is given less weight. You know that, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's back up a second. The unintentional lab leak hypothesis was already not a conspiracy theory, per the WHO's investigation including it for consideration. They concluded it was unlikely, but valid scientifically. The Science article doesn't change that, nor do they seem to be arguing for any specific final conclusion of likelihood. Instead, they just seem to be echoing the call for more investigation with specific data access to make a stronger conclusion, something the WHO themselves (both in the study and the Director General) also called for and said they plan to do.
 * This article isn't referring to the unintentional lab leak hypothesis itself. Only to claims made overstating the level of evidence in its favor, and the actual conspiracy theories about intentional engineering and/or release. Which again, this Nature letter doesn't address. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We refer to conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation. That about covers it all. Alexbrn (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sources other than the WHO report are more mitigated on the merits of the hypothesis. Some call it "massive online speculations", others say there is "no evidence" to support it, ... "Unfounded speculation" seems about a right summary of the prevailing view about the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the article as written conveys information about the lab leak hypothesis in an accurate and neutral way:
 * First off, the hypothesis is listed in the "Virus origin theories" section followed by a long list of blatantly farcical conspiracy theories, which gives the false impression by association that the lab leak hypothesis is also a conspiracy theory.
 * Furthermore, the first sentence discussing the lab leak theory reads: Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories regarding the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic. "Unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories" does not accurately and neutrally convey the degree of support in the mainstream scientific community for the validity and likelihood of the lab leak hypothesis.
 * The quote by Peter Daszak, "The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan", is untrue and misleading―there is a lot of circumstantial evidence for the lab leak hypothesis (a cluster of workers from the lab were hospitalized with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in late 2019, the nature of the coronavirus research at the lab, genetic makeup of the virus, etc.). Daszak also has a conflict of interest due to his relationship with the lab, which I believe would make his statement unreliable, or at the very least should be qualified by mentioning his conflict of interest.
 * "Despite much speculation on the Internet, 'lab' related theories are not supported by scientific evidence." This also give the false impression that the lab leak hypothesis is a mere internet conspiracy theory, rather than a valid hypothesis with mainstream backing in the scientific community. The article includes various sources describing how improbable the lab leak story is, but no mention of scientists affirming the validity of the theory and calling for further inquiry. Stonkaments (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's in with all the other theories because they are the non-mainstream theories. If it becomes mainstream, then it will move, but the fact that virtually all the competing origin theories are batshit insane is no more our problem than the fact that all the competing theories for 9/11 are insane. We are here to reflect the real world, not shape it into what we want it to be, and in the real world the lab leak conjecture is a tiny minority view in science, and a super-popular racist trope, and we don't give the two any kind of parity. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to what JzG noted, I would like to add that Daszak does not appear to have a COI. His statement is valid and deserves due weight as he was part of the WHO investigation. Speaking of which, you need to understand WP:UNDUE, a statement by 18 scientists does not make it a valid reputable hypothesis, nor does it alter the existing scientific consensus.  For reference, Creationist groups routinely publish "statements" signed by many many more "scientists", but it does not affect the status of the Theory of Evolution (see the Project Steve page as an explanation for why) Hyperion35 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you claiming that Daszak does not have a conflict of interest? I have provided two reliable sources supporting the claim that he does indeed have one, and common sense also says that his long-term relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology poses a clear COI.
 * As for your other point, I agree that the statement by the 18 scientists doesn't alter the scientific consensus. But it is clearly noteworthy and DUE for inclusion in the article. Look at your example of creationism—articles such as Level of support for evolution clearly describe the dissent in the scientific community ("A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.") Your argument that the letter is UNDUE doesn't hold weight IMO. WP can and should document the dissenting view within the scientific community; what we must avoid is giving UNDUE credence to its validity. Stonkaments (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not how COIs work. What we have are non-expert sources (popular media) quoting an individual scientist who claims that Daszak has a COI.  But the actual explanation for that COI simply does not hold up, it is a classic conspiracy theory.  Quite the opposite, his experience with the Wuhan lab was one of the strongest reasons for sending him.  And regardless, he was not the only scientist on his team.  As someone who works for a government healthcare agency, I actually have experience determining COIs, this would not be a COI.  They sent him there for the same reason that my supervisor often says to me "you've worked with healthcare providers before, can you please talk to these people?"  And his connection was not unknown, this was not an undisclosed COI, if anyone believed that a COI existed then Daszak would not have been sent there in the first place. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given a letter in Science by renown scientists and an article on the New York Times detailing the letter and the hypothesis, this theory cannot possibly be called a ‘conspiracy theory’. The fact that users still fight to call it as such and keep it on this page, bundled up with the weapons theory is ahosultely insane. It many be a minority viewpoint, but it’s a real scientific hypothesis sustained by many experts. At this point, this really seems like censorship. At the very least, separate the paragraph into “lab leak” and “weapon”, these things are clearly not related and the former has real scientist behind it. Eccekevin (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. As it stands now, Wikipedia should be on the list for spreading misinformation. Nakerlund (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The letter doesn't change anything as far as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is concerned (it's a WP:PRIMARY source for the opinion of its authors, as clearly explained). Conspiracy theory, unfounded speculation or small minority scientific hypotheses all get the same treatment, so you can call foul all you want, but without a secondary, reputable MEDRS to support the lab leak, you're wasting everyone's time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * BUt you can't call a small minority scientific a conspiracy theory or vice versa. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's a small minority scientific viewpoint and it should be referred as such. Also, there should be two separate paragraphs, since they;re two completely different and unrelated ideas. Eccekevin (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello RandomCanadian! Policy is not the point. Two very different issues have been mixed and the text is directly misleading. You should take a break if you feel your time is wasted. I'm sure there are plenty of us here to resolve this adequately without wasting more of your time.Nakerlund (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The text is not misleading. The lab leak can be accurately summed up as "unfounded speculation", according to most MEDRS which discuss the matter. If you're not sure, see the links I gave here - there you will find sources which, if they mention the lab leak at all (many don't mention it at all, simply stating zoonosis as the accepted hypothesis), describe it in generally unkind terms. That means that whatever one considers the lab leak to be (geopolitical blameshifting, unfounded speculation, scientific hypothesis), it cannot be put on an equal footing to mainstream science per FALSEBALANCE. An opinion letter (which is a WP:PRIMARY source and is not a MEDRS) is not sufficient to change the analysis in regards of that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the fact one is a minority point of view does not mean is it a conspiracy theory. But most importantly, the scientific hypothesis that it is of zoonotic origin and was being studied in a lab and there was an accidental leak needs to be treated separately from the bio-weapon conspiracy theory. They are not the same (one has no scientific support at all while the other has plenty of respectable scientists that consider it a possibility) and they should not be treated as such. Eccekevin (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem much more familiar with the subject than me. Could you explain why the lab leak is misinformation? Do we have a recent source calling it misinformation? I don't see how the accepted hypothesis makes an alternative explanation misinformation. Even if it is highly unlikely. The letter discussed makes the lab leak seem less highly unlikely now as well. If we went by the age of the accepted hypothesis we would not have gotten very far with science Nakerlund (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The lab leak is a possible (but extremely unlikely, and so for the very little [circumstantial] "evidence" for it essentially boils down to "there's a lab in Wuhan") idea, whose proponents engage in frequent misinformation (by cherry-picking evidence to favour their conclusions [that's not how the scientific method works], claiming it is on equal footing to the accepted alternative, ...). Claims about the origin of the virus, whether the outlandish genetic manipulation one, or the less implausible lab leak, are also frequent tropes used for political blame-shifting, or sometimes more plainly simple xenophobia. It's also been very actively promoted by a group of Twitter enthusiasts who have little if any relevant scientific competence and who have engaged in disruption here, on Wikipedia. The letter is the opinion of a few scientists, and as such cannot be used for much except saying that a few scientists said something, because it is a WP:PRIMARY source. But then that would be unduly legitimising the lab leak by giving equal weight to a minority opinion (WP:FALSEBALANCE), so we shouldn't do that. We can use the letter to support the less controversial call for further investigation, but that's about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, your concerns of extremists’ cherry picking, political bias and xenophobia seem a bit backwards. Foolish or not, we have elected to do research on extremely dangerous pathogens despite knowing that accidents sometimes happen. The scientists who get up close and personal risk their lives to understand our biological enemies. Our concern should be with them and any accident should be met by condolences and an overview of the safety procedures to keep the same accident from ever happening again. When accidents do happen, it is important the scientific community can be transparent to minimize the exposure. Associating lab accidents with misinformation is wrong and disrespectful to those who have had to give up their lives for science. Nakerlund (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By that same reasoning, accusing a lab of allowing a virus to escape should also be done only when there is sufficient evidence, else we are disrespecting those same scientists. And you have another aspect of this backwards as well, there have been two previous deadly zoonotic coronavirus events in the past two decades, SARS and MERS.  The consensus is that both of those were natural zoonotic transfers occuring in the wild.  There were two other deadly new zoonotic influenza strains in that same period, Bird Flu and Swine Flu.  We know that these things happen, we have been worried about a zoonotic transfer resulting in a(nother) major pandemic for several decades now.  As random as it may seem, there is plenty of precedent for a single hunter catching a disease while butchering a wild animal and then spreading it around the world, just look at HIV.  I keep stressing this because you do not seem to understand how health experts are viewing this: zoonotic origin actually requires fewer unsupported assumptions. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eccekevin. The placement of the minority view of a possible lab origin next to conspiracy theories, such as an intentional bioweapon release, is problematic. The way the section is currently phrased makes it seem as if the lab origin possibility is a conspiracy theory. The consensus across wiki talk pages is that the lab origin hypothesis is a fringe minority viewpoint. Therefore, it is important that the hypothesis is not conflated (as it is dramatically in this article) as a conspiracy theory. The easiest way to avoid the conflation would be to remove the lab origin possibility from this article. If there is no consensus for that simple solution, then the next best thing is to make the lab origin have its own section. The section as it stands is itself misinformation. facepalm. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. No one is saying that the zoonotic origin followed by the accidental lab spillover should be taken as the new truth, but it also should not be treated in the same realm as man-made disease bio-weapon as it is now. It should be removed from this article or have its own subparagraph that explains well the claims, the support, and the misinformation (that sure abounds too) but without conflating it with eh bio-weapon story. Eccekevin (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There is plenty of mis-information and conspiracy theorizing regarding lab leaks that must remain in this article. There is also legitimate scientific inquiry into a possible lab leak. That scientific inquiry should be discussed at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 03:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lab accidents are very real and tragic. Until one has been ruled out, regardless of how improbable, it is essential that the risk is taken seriously. It must not be labeled as misinformation prematurely. Nakerlund (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing premature about this. Until there's actually evidence of a lab leak, this is sheer speculation. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is actual (circumstantial) evidence; there is no direct evidence for either the lab leak or the zoonotic transfer theory, so neither should be labled as misinformation while still under investigation. The WIV was actively researching and creating novel coronaviruses, there were signs of an outbreak in August 2019, the CCP has denied interviewers access to researchers at the WIV (including those who were ill in the fall of 2019), investigators have found no trace of how the virus first jumped to humans, the double codon CGG-CGG at the furin cleavage site (which hasn't been found in any other coronavirus but is routinely used in labs), etc. Stonkaments (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's time for a reminder that this is a lot simpler than some editors are wanting to make it. We find the best sources on the topic of misinformation. We summarize them. That's it. This will, by design, result in a trailing-edge, conservative, mainstream view of the matter - in short, an encyclopedic view. If there's a desire to create something more racy, then a sister project like Wikiversity is a more suitable venue. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What you call "circumstantial evidence" isn't even that. It's WP:SYNTH, trying to tie together disparate facts into a narrative.
 * That said, Alexbrn is right, we're going by what reliable sources say. And the lab leak hypothesis is such a WP:FRINGE view that it's misinformation to promote it. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, the promotion of the "lab leak" story, whether it be from the WIV or Fort Detrick, takes us into the realm of misinformation. Keeping it in mind as a remote possibility is however fine. But that's not what the online proponents do, they're all like #chinaliedpeopledied, invoking a conspiracy to conceal as fact. This is an article about misinformation. You'd think from some of the comments here that some editors think there is no misinformation about labs and COVID-19, which is seriously adrift not only of the sourcing, but of reality too. Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Alexbrn! I agree. It's ridiculous Nakerlund (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What you call "circumstantial evidence" isn't even that. It's WP:SYNTH, trying to tie together disparate facts into a narrative. Nope, this entire argument is laid out in-depth here, not synth from disparate facts. And there is nothing conservative or encyclopedic about calling the lab leak hypothesis a fringe conspiracy theory, when numerous reliable sources are now calling it a mainstream theory and explicitly denouncing its characterization as a conspiracy theory. Stonkaments (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well said, Stonkaments! I fear my arguments fail to convince others. The bulletin is a very good source that keep getting erroneously dismissed in this discussion. Nakerlund (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again! Thanks all for bringing this conversation forwards. I am not yet swayed by the arguments and still have concerns about the framing of the Wuhan leak story. Maybe some concrete suggestions for changes could help us keep the conversation creative? A very very small change that I think might be a start would be to change the title “Wuhan lab leak story” to “Wuhan lab leak theory” just to indicate that the possibility of a lab leak is a real theory and not something fictional. I would prefer something more like “Chinese Biological Weapon” as a natural counterpoint to “United States biological weapon”, which is more in line with actual misinformation. What’s the minimal we can agree on? Am I way off? Please provide counter suggestions so we stay creative! Nakerlund (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That something may be possible is not even the bare minimum required for us to pretend that it is realistic. We have sources that do not pass MEDRS that say, at best, that it is not impossible.  I do understand why some non-experts might feel that a lab leak is more likely, but that is only due to a lack of familiarity with the medical literature, and how it is evaluated (and I attempted to explain this on the talk page of the main SARS-COV2 article).  The title of this article is COVID-19 Misinformation, and to state anything more than that a lab leak is not technically impossible is misinformation.  The MEDRS sources that we have all say that it is highly unlikely, and that a zoonotic transmission in the wild is the most likely scenario.  By definition, any any attempt to pretend that a lab leak is likely is misinformation.  There are also claims that HIV was manufactured in a lab, and this may not be technically impossible, but all MEDRS are very clear about why there is a broad scientific consensus that HIV1 and HIV2 resulted from two separate zoonotic events when a hunter butchered a non-human primate that carried SIV in the wild, and so this is what we report.  As I mentioned on the talk page of SARS-COV2, I think that part of this isa problem with understanding MEDRS, but a larger problem is trying to explain in a non-technical manner to non-experts how to evaluate evidence like an expert.  Hyperion35 (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha! Ouch, but yes, that would explain why I still don’t understand the issue the way you do, Hyperion35. Do you think anything can be done to improve the current writing? Could we split the text to better differentiate between lab leak misinformation and Chinese biological weapon misinformation? I think the current sources do offer such a distinction. Or maybe create a Simple English page that clarifies this very complex issue in easier steps. Nakerlund (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello again again all! Here is an article that gives further weight to the leak theory: https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/six-essential-stories-on-the-origins-of-covid-19/. It states that "In the spring of 2020, the so-called “lab leak” hypothesis, which many scientists now say publicly needs to be interrogated further, was often characterized as something of a conspiracy theory in news articles." I think this article still portrays the "lab leak" hypothesis as something of a conspiracy theory. Portraying the "lab leak" hypothesis as a conspiracy theory is becoming more and more misinformation in itself it seems. Nakerlund (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That article is a summary of other news stories. And yes, the best that they say about a lab leak is that it is plausible, but unproven, which is the definition of things that we don't usually cover.  Some claims about a lab leak are very clearly conspiracy theories, and several of those stories mention that the claims came from politicians who have very clear non-neutral motives.  It is also worth pointing out that if the scientists mentioned in these articles had more definitive evidence, they would submit it for peer review rather than talking to journalists or writing letters to editors. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! I realize we are in the field of medicine here but misinformation is not. Are you sure we should be bridging that gap? Can we assume that these scientists have the expertise required to get articles published that deals with misinformation? Also, the section header should be the "Lab leak hypothesis" or something that indicates that the posibility of a lab leak is not necessarily misinformation by itself. Nakerlund (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

PolitiFact withdrew their fact check on this issue https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/. Wikipedia should not follow media trends but then it should not have labeled the Wuhan Leak Theory misinformation in the first place either Nakerlund (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia should not follow media trends" &larr; preach it! This is absolutely right and why we stick to secondary, scholarly, peer-reviewed, reputably-published, on-point sources rather than trying to track shifts in journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with both. Do we have secondary, scholarly, peer-reviewed, reputably-published, on-point sources claiming a lab leak is a conspiracy theory? Politifact editors made the following comment: Editor’s note, May 17, 2021: When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database pending a more thorough review. Currently, we consider the claim to be unsupported by evidence and in dispute. The original fact-check in its entirety is preserved below for transparency and archival purposes. Read our May 2021 report for more on the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19.. Also they have a new page on the virus origin: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/may/17/debating-origins-covid-19-virus-what-we-know-what-/ that states Scientists who have studied the coronavirus have generally concluded that it resembles naturally occurring viruses. But researchers are paying more attention to the possibility that the virus somehow leaked from the lab, though there’s still nothing conclusive. I think this is how Wikipedia should report the lab leak hypothesis. We don't know the virus origins. A lab leak is a "possibility" not a "conspiracy theory"/"Misinformation". -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RS puts it in the mix with unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories, which seems reasonable (and is what Wikipedia does accordingly). The lab leak narrative goes hand-in-hand with the idea China covered it up which implies a conspiracy. The best sourcing is handily surveyed at WP:NOLABLEAK. As above we should avoid being blown by the winds of journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, several of the already cited sources in the section refer to specific conspiracy theories. Most notably: the bioweapon theory, the pharma company manufacturing for profit theory, and the "it doesn't exist" conspiracy.
 * The tricky part is the unintentional release of a bat virus theory. By itself, the WHO found that a worthy hypothesis to investigate (published later than most of our sources on misinformation), but an unlikely one. This is mirrored in the Hakim source. The potential misinformation part is the overstating of the evidence regarding this theory: Therefore, there are discussions and unjustified theory—promoted by the US President Donald Trump—whether one of the two laboratories in Wuhan could have been the source of SARS‐CoV‐2. This section doesn't do as good a job making this distinction between plausible (but unlikely) theory and misinformation about it as it could and should. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree we should distinguish between the two. At the moment it seems we are grouping together ("puts it in the mix") whatever hypothesis includes the word "lab". However they are not all the same and this is incorrect. The unintentional release of a bat virus theory is not misinformation or a conspiracy theory. the WHO found that a worthy hypothesis to investigate (published later than most of our sources on misinformation), but an unlikely one do you have an exact source for this? It could be used as a good basis to fix this. -- &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "The unintentional release of a bat virus theory is not misinformation or a conspiracy theory." &larr; It could be, according to RS. Or maybe just unfounded speculation. This is an article about misinformation - so we find what good RS says about that and reflect it faithfully. Not sure why some editors want to make it more complicated. If there's a desire to write about "legitimate" ideas, find a source describing them and an article suitable for their inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the WHO report published in March is heavily cited on the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article. After citing previous research which ruled out intentional engineering of the genome, they rated an inadvertent lab leak to be "extremely unlikely". I'll take a stab at language to this effect, the theory itself isn't misinformation, but many of proponents of this (and similar) theories did propagate misinformation surrounding its likelihood and the evidence of it. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Recovered a couple of direct and relevant sources:
 * WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part page 118 discusses in depth the Introduction through a laboratory incident as a possible hypotheis although In view of the above, a laboratory origin of the pandemic was considered to be extremely unlikely.
 * Joint Statement on the WHO-Convened COVID-19 Origins Study https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-the-who-convened-covid-19-origins-study/ 14 countries are basically accusing China of not collaborating with the WHO investigation properly. The conclusions of the WHO report above are based on records provided by China (for example the fact that There is no record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019, or genomes that in combination could provide a SARS-CoV-2 genome.. This has lead the head of the WHO to state: the theory that the virus might have come from a leak in a laboratory "requires further investigation, potential with additional missions involving specialist experts," Dr Tedros said on Tuesday. "Let me say clearly that as far as WHO is concerned, all hypothesis remain on the table," he added.-- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Has any scientist ever said "some hypothesis are no longer on the table" or "further investigation is not required"? Asking someone who makes a living investigating things whether things should be investigated is like asking a realtor whether this is a good time to buy a house. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, the WHO report explicitly says that the deliberate bioengineering theory was ruled out, and thus needn't be investigated. We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome. IMO, this is precisely why we should draw the misinformation line here, between the scientifically certain and uncertain. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Break for rewrite
I updated this section to better distinguish the legitimate science (mainstream and fringe) from the misinformation and conspiracy. While I didn't include the Science open letter, I didn't feel it fit the topic (that is, discussing misinformation about the lab). There may be room for more detail that not every dispute of the mainstream analysis of the theory is misinfo/conspiracy, but I'm not sure it's necessary compared to just pointing out the clear misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks fine, except the bit about "legitimate science" which seems a bit editorially free bearing WP:V in mind. Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see that. My intention was to refer to peer-reviewed high-quality science (distinguishing it from Li-Meng Yan et al unreviewed politically-motivated essays masquerading as science), if you have a better synonym that better for neutrality and verifiability I'd be in favor of replacing it. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just moved the better-verified WHO stuff up to replace it, which still makes the distinction between what they say, and what the conspiracists say. Alexbrn (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposal: change the initial phrase with .  "Origin" is too vague of a word, my proposed phrasing solves the ambiguity. Otherwise, a reader will believe animal origin is disputed, and it isn't. Forich (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting. In regard to this statement:

To adhere to NPOV, propose to change to:

i.e. This was the conclusion of the joint study team, of whom WHO scientists only comprised half. We should also note that the report has been challenged. Either referencing the joint statement by 14 countries, or the Science letter, or Tedros' statement that a laboratory leak requires further investigation. '''-Unsigned comment by
 * No, because it would be inventive POV wording. Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mirroring, that's less neutral. Particularly since the report itself said more investigation is necessary (about all four theories), and singling out that one hypothesis as 'challenged' is selective quoting for POV-pushing. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * are you suggesting that we gonna select that statement from the WHO report calling for more investigation and ignore the WHO Director General’s criticisms of the assessments made in the report on one of the hypothesis? And, also, ignore the similar responses of the US and the EU governments on the reports faults? Furthermore you suggest to ignore this Science letter and all the coverage it got? --Francesco espo (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ignore the WHO Director General’s criticisms of the assessments made in the report on one of the hypothesis? 1. I don't characterize the DG's statements as 'criticisms', at least not in terms of 'faults'. 2. The selective quoting of his statements regarding 'one of the hypothesis' is the POV problem, since he spent more time addressing areas the other three hypotheses needed more investigation as well.
 * But no, not ignore it. I think it's all handled very well on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (and there's a good reason we link it from this section). As do I think the rewrite to this page handles specifically the misinformation well. Unless the Science letter is misinformation, it doesn't belong here. What belongs here is the misinformation surrounding the theory; like sketchy preprints funded by activists, and politicians using flawed evidence to scapegoat. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the report itself, the title of report is WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part. Joint WHO-China Study. Attributing the conclusion to the WHO team is factually incorrect, because it is actually the conclusion of the joint WHO-China team. It is also an omission to leave out that the report is controversial.Cowrider (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then WP:FIXIT. Your update in quotes seems fine, it's the justification I have concerns with (and I think I conflated the two when I first read it). Bakkster Man (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent respect for citations regarding the Ivermectin section.
The opening sentence in the Ivermectin section is a paraphrase of an opinion published by the New York Times, where the part relevant to ivermectin (their opinion of the mention of ivermectin at the hearing) is based on a disagreement between the presenter on ivermectin, and the opinion of the National Institutes of Health at that time. The National Institutes of Health has since gone from recommending against the use of ivermectin in the prophylaxis and early treatment of COVID-19, to being neutral on the question, and the corresponding section of COVID-19 drug repurposing research now cites that updated guidance. It probably makes sense to reframe or remove this statement, since it is based on an opinion which is then based on an expired observation. Aaron Muir Hamilton &#60;aaron@correspondwith.me&#62; (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no information in the Repurposing article that says that NIH is "neutral" on the use of ivermectin. What I see are multiple citations to multiple different groups saying that it is not effective, not approved, and not recommended for the treatment of COVID-19.  I am not even sure how the NIH would be "neutral" on the subject.  If you have a source more recent than January 2021 that says that the NIH position is different from their statement recommending against the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, please share it. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote directly from the page cited by the third paragraph: “There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”. The lack of clarity in paraphrasing the NIH's advice there is probably part of why you didn't see where it was saying that. Aaron Muir Hamilton &#60;aaron@correspondwith.me&#62; (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the page at the link for that reference was last updated in February, at this point; but the recommendation in January was already “neither for nor against”. Aaron Muir Hamilton &#60;aaron@correspondwith.me&#62; (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that they have no data to recommend either for or against its use is not "neutral". It means that they cannot recommend its use, period.  The "against" part means they don't have enough data to determine if it is actively harmful. Hyperion35 (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Fine as is. NIH (in common with all the WP:BESTSOURCES) didn't think this a "miracle cure" in 2020 and still don't today. This is an article about misinformation, so needs to describe it. From the sources, this American hearing seems to have been how all this nonsense started. Alexbrn (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Fazze Russian misinformation?
I don't have time to dig into this right now but maybe someone else will. Daily Dot: Influencers asked to spread anti-vax comments by mysterious PR agency the agency was apparently a Russian (?) front and called itself Fazze. The Wall Street Journal covered it too. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject COVID-19
Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

naturally mutated virus or engineered virus; Lab leak or no lab leak: are these not two very different things?
I sense a frustration among some editors that two very different questions (first, is the virus origin natural or engineered; second, did it reach the human population via the laboratory or not) are conflated; so that the clear scientific consensus on the first question (that it has a natural origin) is used to close down any suggestion of credibility of the second question. I simply cannot see why we are not treating these two questions separately. With respect to all. Springnuts (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From your mouth to God's ears ... even if what you say is true (and I largely agree with you), what specific changes to Wikipedia do you suggest be made? I note there is certainly sufficient misinformation about COVID lab leak theories to justify some presence in this article. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 23:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well for a start, the subsection of “Origins”, which is headed “Wuhan lab leak theory” but is actually almost all about the engineered virus origin theory (and properly would be entirely so) would be called “engineered in Wuhan lab” or similar. Springnuts (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're proposing the section be titled "Deliberate lab leak theory" or the like? User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 00:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, no (that would be a sub-section of disease spread - if there are RS for such a "deliberate spread" theory). Springnuts (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Why quote marks around "lab"?
Why are quote marks being placed around lab in this article. Please read MOS:QUOTEPOV. I am unable to see their purpose. In the sentences use words instead to describe what is being attempted to be said with the quote marks. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not to do with POV. It's known as the "lab leak" hypothesis so is just quoting the word with quotation marks to demarcate the word from wikivoice (which is more formal). Alexbrn (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In the Wuhan lab leak story section there are currently multiple usage of this phrasing. The current examples:


 * disproving a "lab" related origin
 * theories of a "lab" origin
 * support the "lab" origin hypothesis
 * propagation of the "lab" origin theory


 * So in each of these cases you mean to say


 * disproving a "lab leak" related origin
 * theories of a "lab leak" origin
 * support the "lab leak" origin hypothesis
 * propagation of the "lab leak" origin theory


 * It's really simpler to just put this in wikivoice and say:


 * disproving a lab related origin
 * theories of a lab origin
 * support the lab origin hypothesis
 * propagation of the lab origin theory


 * The leak statement is self-evident in this section already. The usage of this excessive amount of quotes around a single word is clunky and goes against the spirit of MOS:QUOTEPOV. Which I've included below:




 * Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words such as supposedly or so-called, might be inferred.




 * I'm curious to hear what others think. I know it's just quotation marks, but currently it sounds off. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Beyond just removing the quotes, we probably need a better way to distinguish the two types of lab-related theories in some of these instances. Some refer to any contact with a laboratory prior to human infection, some refer specifically to the scientific theory the WHO evaluated as a plausible explanation, and others are specifically conspiracies or misinformation about intentional engineering of the virus for the purposes of release. Clarifying what we're referring to on each use is beneficial, especially given the arguments about this article implying the former, scientific option, is misinfo when we intend to refer only to the pseudoscientific and outright conspiratorial claims. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. The article needs to be concise about what is being discussed, since as you say, there are a mix of implied meanings in the different phrases. First, let's get the definition of the "lab leak" hypothesis correct. In the WHO report, which is used as the citation in this article, on page 118, the "lab leak" hypothesis is defined in the section called "Introduction through a laboratory incident". The WHO defines the hypothesis as follows:
 * "SARS-CoV-2 is introduced through a laboratory incident, reflecting an accidental infection of staff from laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses."
 * The key word in this lab origin hypothesis is the word "accidental". The WHO also states that it did not consider the following lab origin hypotheses:
 * "We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome (3)."
 * The key phrases from these two lab origin hypotheses are "deliberate release" and "deliberate bioengineering".--Guest2625 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose this sentence in the article:
 * A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the laboratory origin scenario as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence,

is changed to
 * A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the accidental escape of the virus from a laboratory as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence,

This sentence is concise and explains which of the three lab origin hypotheses is being discussed. If there is consensus to fix this sentence, then the next '"lab" origin' phrase in the article can be discussed. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

“It might be the US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan"
I am seeing a lot of comments in the usual places about this one:


 * As U.S. calls for focus on covid origins, China repeats speculation about U.S. military base

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin
Add a section on how one of the major proponents of the mis-information regarding Ivermectin as a treatment is now also offering a 2 million dollar reward for anybody that can prove it is not an effective treatment, reference to this mis-guided mis-information prank: https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=ChannelEmail&utm_campaign=Ivermectin&utm_content=Popular%2BTrending Adriaandh (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given Adriaandh's editing here, I don't see any reason to consider this a good faith attempt to improve this encyclopedia.
 * Unreliable, promotional source. --Hipal (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be unethical to run a clinical trial in an attempt to prove that a treatment does not work. One could run a clinical trial to attempt to demonstrate that a treatment does work, but a full-up Phase III human RCT would cost several orders of magnitude more than $2 million, hence the publicity stunt. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy: Re-label the WHO investigation as "Joint WHO-China investigation".
The WHO-China investigation should be labeled as such, for what it is. It is how it is reported in most media, on its own official report , and on many Wikipedia pages. User RandomCanadian removed the "China" part for no reason.Eccekevin (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's me? I'm quite sure I've referred to it as the WHO-Chine investigation a couple of times. If it's not the first occurence, we can shorten it, though, to avoid being repetitive (though most sources seem to call it the "WHO report" or similar, including that CNN article: "World Health Organization investigation"; "the WHO investigation"; ...). In both cases I think readers will know what is being referred to, anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I know you have, which is why I am confused why you removed it. But I am glad you agree. We should not assume what the reader knows. To be fair and complete, it should be shortened to "WHO-China report", which is not long.Eccekevin (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, that. I simply reverted to the last definitively stable version, completely ignoring any content issue, since of course there was an edit-war ongoing and I'd much rather we have a previously stable version while we hash it out on the talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"Lab leak" – new source
From SBM here, offering some good coverage of the wingnuttery swirling around the "lab leak" narrative. Could be useful to help re-focus on misinformation (the actual topic of this article), which is otherwise drifting a bit too much into editorial musings about the topic at large. Alexbrn (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Contested new material
An editor wishes to add in the introduction section of the lab origin section the following material:


 * In the first half of 2021, press and political interest in the narratives of a "lab leak" had gained renewed interest, but the underlying evidence remained insubstantial. David Gorski, writing for Science-Based Medicine said that the "lab leak" hypothesis had become "in essence, a conspiracy theory".

This content is a non-neutral summary of the lab accident subsection and the references in that section. The sentence states that the lab accident idea is a conspiracy theory. This goes against the references in the section and current consensus among wikipedia editors not to treat the lab accident as a conspiracy theory. President Joe Biden and the president of the WHO have called for investigations of the possibility of a lab accident. They are not conspiracy theorists. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * By "non-neutral" you mean "it's not the POV I like!", but this is a very common misunderstanding of what NPOV means. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, that is what NPOV means. SBM is a good source for fringe topics and so due; people are free to disagree with it if they wish. Alexbrn (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the objection. The text reliably summarizes the source referenced.  Gorski is very clear that the "lab leak" hypothesis, while possible, is extremely unlikely (and that the idea of engineering or gain of function research playing a role is even more unlikely), and he explains why in that linked source, where he also links to other sources.  Gorski goes on to explain why many claims that are made in favor of a "lab leak" are not reliable, and in some cases are simply untrue (such as the claim about a certain amino acid sequence being impossible in nature).  How is this an issue? Hyperion35 (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The neutral in neutral point of view means fairly reflecting the available sources, not selecting sources that voice no opinion. It's an acceptable source, and as says above, the text summarizes it fairly. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not really sure what there is to contest here. Other than perhaps a desire to attribute both statements to the author (it does read more like an opinion piece than journalism) I don’t see what the objection could be. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't seem to be MEDRS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the source, content seems decent and Science-Based Medicine seems like RS, and David Gorski a credible figure. However, they don't seem to be an active researcher, the publication isn't peer-reviewed, and is not MEDRS. Given that many opinions have been removed citing MEDRS - something I note is pretty much snowing with opposes in an ongoing RfC - it's only fair to hold all such content to the same standard. It may well violate NPOV to include this, thus. I'd otherwise support including it, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're a bit out of date - you'd want to remove all the now-included newspaper sources too? MEDRS applies to biomedicine; for fringe science and wingnuttery SBM is a perfect source. Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh Christ, this article moves fast. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, current article looks pretty NPOV to me. Then sure, support the addition. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, per WP:RSP, Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. This occasionally comes up when SBM gets mentioned.  Basically, for biomed stuff, we'd want to cite whatever sources that the SBM article uses, but it's often a good NPOV secondary source for fringe claims, since they're often one of the few reputable sites that covers fringe claims neutrally.  Neutral in this context meaning that SBM does not repeat fringe claims but rather examines them in comparison to the generally accepted scientific consensus. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the intention of the inclusion? Are we sourcing this comment as a/the mainstream view, or as a single description of the view? I find it interesting that, at the same time it has appeared that investigations into the lab theory have been gaining credibility (at least as an area of legitimate investigation, if not more likely to be true), that we would add a quote essentially saying "the WHO evaluated, and intends to continue evaluating, what is in essence a conspiracy theory". In other words, we should be extra careful that we're not giving this non-journal non-peer reviewed source written by a non-virologist more credence than other non-journal non-peer reviewed sources written by non-virologists, simply because we think the source aligns with our expectations of the majority. We should make sure we're reading it neutrally for WP:RS and WP:V, because it's a strong and notable source, not just because we agree with it.
 * At first glance, I see this source as more notably useful for identifying the lab leak itself as WP:FRINGE/ALT, and pointing to good sources debunking common WP:FRINGE/PS claims, than for the opinion of the author about whether we refer to it as a conspiracy or not. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Is this an RFC? It's not clear what's going on here. Nonetheless, this would be both a deeply biased and pointless inclusion. Biased because it jumps to someone's critique of the theory right after noting the renewal of interest - before even explaining what caused this renewal of interest. And pointless because it doesn't really tell us anything. What does "in essence, a conspiracy theory" mean - is that the same as a conspiracy theory? And if so, who's conspiring? And is every theory involving a conspiracy inherently false? And is David Gorski an expert on conspiracies, on viruses, on both, or neither? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From the byline: David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer Liaison Physician as well as an Associate Professor of Surgery and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University. As a quick non-policy anecdotal note on the topic, early in the year when another surgeon wrote an op-ed suggesting 'herd immunity by April', a doctor friend of mine described it as "surgeons: sometimes right, always certain". Bakkster Man (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a discussion to get consensus. Gorski (and Science-Based Medicine) are considered to be a reliable source on fringe material, as per the entry at WP:RSP and the page on it. So yes, given that it's an acceptable expert-published source, and given that I'm finding an absolute dearth of papers which cover the lab leak seriously, beyond the WHO report and a few others, it would be the next best thing, especially for the newer, non-scientific developments, which are mostly not covered in scientific journals. The opening paragraph is rather less ambiguous than the given quote, if you were not sure:


 * "Unsurprising" seems to capture the nature of situation quite well... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, a reasonable quote would be "David Gorski has stated that the lab leak theory is "still highly improbable" or something like that. But to quote him saying that it's "in essence, a conspiracy theory" seems out of place - it's quasi-political commentary from a medical professional. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How we could go from an article that basically debunks arguments for this, describes the "accidental release" hypothesis as basically a more respectable 'variant' of the "deliberate engineering" conspiracy theory, and ends by saying how this whole political fingerpointing is a needless distraction from the real, actual problem, which is dealing with the virus right here right now, and end up with only saying "the lab leak is still highly improbable"; escapes me. That would seem to be a misrepresentation of the source, or at least it would not be very helpful here, since this article deals with misinformation, and that source is full of plenty of relevant details about misinformation which we can include, beyond the simple statement that the lab leak is highly improbable (which we can cite from both there but also better sources, such as the WHO report and peer-reviewed papers). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is, what makes this source (and the claim attributed to it) worthy of inclusion? Particularly relative to the Wade article or WaPo timeline? As you point out, we have stronger WP:SCHOLARSHIP that says all but the claim this statement is being cited for (which contradicts our strongest sources), which suggests it's a claim that isn't as widespread/reliable as we'd like. We've been very consistent about holding ourselves to these high sourcing standards for a reason, we should think long and hard before making a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim using a weak source, unless we want to open the flood gates to a lot of other claims with sources of relatively similar quality (not peer reviewed, not a virologist). Bakkster Man (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that, though David Gorski is clearly very interested in the political implications of this lab leak theory, his views on the political aspects are not that interesting - and not that relevant to this article. (And also not that persuasive, in my opinion, but that's another story.) The only truly relevant aspects of his article are his thoughts on the likelihood of the lab leak theory, since that's his expertise. All the rest is what is sometimes called Bulverism - talking about your opponents' motivations instead of the actual subject at hand. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)