Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2/Archive 11

Zoonotic origin & lab-leak overlap
Hi User:RandomCanadian, the two main hypotheses put forward by reliable sources are (1) zoonotic transmission and (2) a lab-leak. But there is an overlap between these two categories. And the media have played up the risk of accidental transmission from live bats in the lab. We should acknowledge this and add that experts assess the risk as very low.--Pakbelang (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should, because what those experts say is that when compared with the odds of spillover happening in the wild (such as from any one of hundreds of thousands of people exposed to bats in rural China - see quotes from experts here) are higher by orders of magnitude to the likelihood of all stars aligning for someone working in a lab, where they're surely aware of the risks, being unknowingly infected, by an undetected virus in a sample they collected, which is somehow still present to a sufficient degree to infect the person. This, in addition to evidence pointing to an origin away from the lab in question (the fact cases were initially clustered in a market miles from it) and from Wuhan altogether (such as the genetic divergence of early cases).
 * In short, seems like WP:FALSEBALANCE to me (by the comparison of this idea with accepted scholarship). Yes, the media have played this up. We're an encyclopedia, so we can do better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. In which case I'm thinking we need some text to make it clear that that the zoonotic sub-section only refers to zoonotic transmission in the wild, i.e. zoonotic transmission that is unconnected with the lab. This is fairly clear when reading the article as a whole but it is not clear when reading the sub-section on its own.Pakbelang (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We absolutely should. A zoonotic transmission can lead to a lab-leak, they're not exclusionary of each other. It's a false dichotomy the page should be clear about it. It should be zoonotic transmission in the wild and lab-leak theory.Eccekevin (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think each subsection needs to have that clarity to perfection, or else if we applied that rule universally to every subsection (the so-called categorical imperative), then every single subsection would be extremely long and unwieldy. If it is clear from information beforehand in the article text, especially the overarching section, then we do not need to worry so much about the subsection.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's start by clarifying the pinned Current Consensus section of this and other talk pages, which currently says "The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin." Terjen (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Those discussions (and sources) make very clear that "zoonotic origin" in that context means "zoonotic origin in the wild." Every single source, in some way, is comparing "zoonotic origin" to "lab leak" and determining that the former is more likely.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 11:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * &, The recent BMJ article is relevant to this discussion. The head of the WHO study is reported as saying: "“A lab employee infected in the field while collecting samples in a bat cave—such a scenario belongs both as a lab leak hypothesis and as our first hypothesis of direct infection from bat to human. We’ve seen that hypothesis as a likely hypothesis,” Ben Embarek argued." This raises a contradiction in the WHO report, with the lab leak being assessed as both "extremely unlikely" and "likely"--Pakbelang (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the contradiction: a scientist being infected in the wild is not a "lab-leak" (although this doesn't say anything about later transmission beyond the first person infected). This seems to be confirmed by Embarek himself: "An employee (of a laboratory) infected in the field taking samples falls under one of the likely hypotheses. This is where the virus passes directly from bats to humans," . "passes directly from bats to humans" -> direct zoonosis (the first of the scenarios considered by the WHO team, and one found to be "likely"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , The report said extremely unlikely, and this guy said likely. He is not making official statements from the WHO. It is not a contradiction. We describe both because both statements are notable. They do not cancel each other out.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 13:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok.Pakbelang (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Natural" vs "wild"
, is "a natural setting" not clear enough? Why not? What edge case are you concerned about? Transmission in a lab of any kind could not be considered "natural" in the traditional natural/synthetic dichotomy.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 12:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes "a natural setting" in the lead is clear enough. Thinking about it again I see that adding "wild" here does not add anything. However, there is a need to change the sub-section heading to "... in the wild" or "Natural zoonotic transmission" (or some other such text). This is because zoonotic transmission can also occur in a laboratory setting and also when lab workers collect samples from the wild (both of which are presumably covered by the lab-leak section). --Pakbelang (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes I agree that the section heading could benefit from the change. Will add it myself-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 13:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing more articles like this in the last week, pointing out the features of the virus that seem engineered. Should this be addressed in the article? Here's the published paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooner2020 (talk • contribs)
 * See Li-Meng Yan for a discussion on why her preprints are unreliable sources. Including peer review described as "debunking". Bakkster Man (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Worthy earlier studies - and more?
Seems a relevant delayed research study may have been recently uncovered. - ALSO - a related recent NYT news (08/24/2021) - AND - a very recent "U.S. Intelligence agencies" study (08/24/2021) - AND - recent NYT/Nature News (08/25/2021) re the "March 2021 W.H.O. Report", and being less able to discover newer crucial evidences,  - AND - recent WaPo News (08/27/2021) re ruling out Covid made as a bioweapon - of possible interest - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy!! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Candidate species to be intermediate hosts and amphibians
One of the ways zoologists seem to be narrowing down the species candidates to be intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2 is through analysis of susceptibility measured by variables such as degree of ACE2 homology and frequency of detected infections. One of the major papers in this line has been Banerjee, Mossman and Baker (2021), a paper published on Cell Host Microbe. Unfortunately, their list of viable candidates is very broad and thus we can not include the whole list of species, due to space limitations.

However, the Banerjee paper does produce a negative result with high degree of confidence: they practically discard amphibians as candidates to be intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2, because of their low ACE2 homology with humans and lack of documented cases of SARS-CoV-2 within them. I have previously tried to insert this information but someone reverted arguing that "This makes no sense: why are we suddenly talking about amphibians (frogs and the like!)? If we're going to discuss potential hosts, we should go about the most significant proposals, indicating if necessary whether these have been found unlikely by further analysis)".

My specific questions are:

1) Is it useful to mention a discarded alternative as a notable result of the investigations into the origin? Amphibians are a whole taxonomic Class, so it is not a minor result. Snakes (suborder Serpentes) and Birds (Class Aves) are next in the list of groups with low probability of being the intermediate host, so research in the direction of discarding taxonomical groups is a valid line of research that adds value to current knowledge.

2) Is it Original Research or Synthesis to put this result along the text describing results on intermediate hosts when there is no MEDRS making the explicit association? Forich (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Taking a step back, is the Banerjee paper a primary or a secondary source? If it's primary, then we wait for a secondary review article to address it and determine the level of weight to give. To do otherwise would be to combine two things we're not supposed to do: interpret research for ourselves, and use primary sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the way we avoid this being SYNTH is waiting for a review article to say it instead of us. They need to be the ones to determine the significance and relevance to the origins question. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Bloom's preprint has been published
Jesse D. Bloom's preprint has been accepted and published online:. Note that the manuscript has been revised since its initial posting to BioRxiv and subsequent peer review, as described in the Acknowledgements. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reporting this, we can now stop using the no-pre print rule on its results.Forich (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, although we should still be cautious to interpret/contextualize its findings in the way secondary sources discuss the findings, as it is still a primary source.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: the preprint is already cited once, as are several articles discussing Bloom's findings in the section "Independent investigations", e.g. Nature, WaPo, Business Insider. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to discuss the "Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19 Origins
On August 27th, 2021, The Office of the Director of National Intelligence published an "Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19 Origins."

In this report, it is stated that it is not believed that COVID-19 could be a bioweapon. However, members of the intelligence community are split on whether the origins of COVID-19 were of natural origins or from a lab leak. It is stated that some analysts favour the lab leak hypothesis, others favour the natural hypothesis and some think both are equally likely. The intelligence community has decided that it is impossible to make a decision on which is correct without further cooperation from China or new information on the earliest COVID-19 cases. However, China's lack of cooperation indicates to the intelligence community that the Chinese government is uncertain about the results of a potential investigation.

This seems very significant. I'd recommend that the people who can edit this page, look into this new report and add information from it to the article as necessary. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , This is the greatest "nothingburger" to end all "nothingburgers." As far as I can tell, from reading the summary, the most accurate interpretation of these findings is shrug. Your summary, however, is innacurate in one way. It's four intelligence community representatives on the committee who assess it likely came from a natural origin, versus one who says it likely came from a laboratory leak. That's a pretty significant ratio to leave out.
 * What specific text do you suggest that we insert into this article, and where do you suggest that we insert it? Do you have any secondary sources to back up that interpretation/summary?— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 06:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's what WaPo had to say. The Director's statement quoted in whole is particularly notable about the political pressure, “These actions reflect in part China’s government’s own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead, as well as its frustration that the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China,”.
 * Two other items I think are important: they didn't think China "had foreknowledge" of the virus before the outbreak, and everything in the report was coupled with a confidence. I haven't seen anything with high levels of certainty, and we should make sure not to misrepresent the level of certainty. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not important whether or not an editor believes these were a "nothingburger". They were investigations into the origin of COVID-19, and they have received significant coverage. We should therefore include them. We should include their major conclusions. In particular, Chinese authorities did not have foreknowledge, they don't think it was a bioweapon, and both LL and Zoonosis are plausible. The LL/Zoonosis split should be summarized somehow. It's an editorial judgment, but I would suggest not going into how many agencies thought this and that. It looks like a fair overall summary to say that they all agreed that both are plausible, and Zoonosis had slightly more support. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , It doesn't matter what you think we should include, it matters what RSes think we should include. That is the essence of WP:DUE.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m seeing overwhelming coverage on this today and expect we will see more, we will have to include it per wp:due at some point in the future. I understand that emotions are running high on this issue but I hope we’re more mature than screaming “nothingburger!" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you might be confused about what I said. I didn't say we shouldn't cover it. Apologies if my "nothingburger" comment was misleading in that respect. I think we should. It's clearly very important to the story of the lab leak controversy and our readers will want us to cover it, because of how DUE the report itself is. The question is how we cover it. And that is the question these RSes answer for us. Not our own opinions about what is "important" in the report.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, that was misleading. It led me to believe that your objection was much more strenuous and comprehensive than it actually is. My apologies as well. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, that was misleading. It led me to believe that your objection was much more strenuous and comprehensive than it actually is. My apologies as well. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I added a few sentences attempting to summarize, and linked it to the original call for the report. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There is oppotunity for improvemente here. We say, while the source (the news report from Sciencemag) says .  I suggest "The IC report's takeaway is that it is dividied on the most likely origin of the pandemic and that both hypothesis are plausible" (pretty much verbatim), because our current text misses the point of divisiveness that the source says it "the first and most important takeaway". Forich (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "with the main point being that the report remained inconclusive as to the origin of the virus, with intelligence agencies divided on the question" seems like a better attempt, as we should avoid verbatim quoting as much as possible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally disagree. At the COVID-19 lab leak theory article, we give our readers exactly what other secondary RSes have said about the report, namely that four IC elements said it was most likely a zoonotic origin, and that one element said it was likely a lab leak. The other three involved elements did not come to a conclusion. I think the sentence RC and Forich are proposing is fine as a summary, but I think we still need to go into a level of detail regarding the individual agency teams as well. That level of nuance is really important for our readers, as the american people have been waiting months for this report. To summarize it so carelessly (and per one source, to the deflection of the other sources cited) is not appropriate imo. I think this is just as much DUE here as it is over at that other article.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the exact count is warranted; especially when it's just unspecified intelligence agencies. The point that needs to be got across to the readers is that the US intelligence community has not come to a definitive conclusion. The rest are details which won't appear all that important once the events are further behind us. i.e. our job as encyclopedia writers is to summarise and give the more important details. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:DUE is an evolving phenomenon. Eventualism tells us that we should respect WP:RECENTISM, of course, but that it can only truly be done with the actual passage of time. If you are right, then news articles in a few weeks or a month will not discuss the numbers. If I'm right, it will still be mentioned. This is the most important actual development in this story since the WHO investigation! It merits more than a sentence. Even if it is a "nothingburger."— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, while it's another lack of definitive conclusions, it is another of the few sources we have putting some level of certainty to their investigations. I'd say it's probably the most notable item to mention in the Biden Admin section, and if the concern is about UNDUE weight I'd look to trim the comments by non-senior administration individuals instead of the published intelligence community report. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Distance between wet market and the Chinese CDC
This information was publicized at the beginning of the pandemic, but there seem to be some accounts that try very hard to delete it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-and-the-laboratories-in-wuhan-11587486996 Perhaps it is a coincidence that the wet market was close to a research center, perhaps it seems to be circumstantial evidence for a leak theory. But perhaps let the readers decide? Cambr5 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. You have linked to an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source. Do reliable sources discuss this? How often? Is it due inclusion? Wikipedia has guidelines and policies which help us stay neutral about the inclusion of indiscriminate facts like this. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You can go to google maps and check where is: 中国疾病预防控制中心 ( Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention ) and where is 武汉华南海鲜批发市场 (Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market) https://www.google.com/maps/dir/%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E9%93%81%E8%B7%AF%E7%96%BE%E7%97%85%E9%A2%84%E9%98%B2%E6%8E%A7%E5%88%B6%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83+China,+Hubei,+Wuhan,+Jianghan+District,+%E9%93%B6%E5%A2%A9%E8%B7%AF/Wuhan+South+China+Seafood+Wholesale+Market,+Jianghan+Qu,+Wuhan+Shi,+Hubei+Sheng,+China/@30.6165951,114.2498213,18z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x342eaead9401f3a9:0x4cb66b62e4dfa018!2m2!1d114.249637!2d30.615771!1m5!1m1!1s0x342ea94ab99e2bfd:0x5ba9b4b6604c943d!2m2!1d114.2616875!2d30.6177919!3e2?hl=en Cambr5 (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a primary source, your opinion of what is relevant. On wikipedia, we use secondary reliable sources to determine what is important and what is not important for our articles. See WP:DUE.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at the rules to confirm: Google maps is the primary source + the previous article linked is a secondary source.


 * Anyway, there is also Wuhan Institute of Virology that is a 40 minute drive. Can this be added to the article? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57268111

Cambr5 (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The opinion piece from the Washington Post is not a suitable secondary source. See WP:RS. The BBC article is suitable, but does not establish that the material is WP:DUE. We already have this sentence: The proximity of the laboratory to the Huanan seafood market has led some to speculate there may be a link between the two. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Source Noticeboard thread on Segreto and Deigin (2020) in BioEssays
Please read the discussion on WP:RSN about the reliability for this topic, of the source:

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.

Feel free to participate with your opinion on its reliability, the discussion is not new but I think it needs to be cemented it that avenue.Forich (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge from COVID-19 misinformation § Virus origin hypotheses, or split to a new article
COVID-19 misinformation § Virus origin hypotheses seems to overlap with the content of this article. It has grown so large that it now qualifies for a split. It may make sense to merge it into this article or split it to a new article. What do you think?

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The new article does have scope to be a stand-alone article. It would also help this article with size reduction. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 13:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In case of a merge, would we have mother-daughter pages? If so, what is the proposed mother article? I am not very familiar with splits, is it on of those things where one can't edit a section because it comes automatically from another entry? Forich (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CORRECTSPLIT has some guidance on how to do splits.
 * is it on of those things where one can't edit a section because it comes automatically from another entry Maybe you're referring to WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION. But when you split an article, you usually replace the content in the original article with Template:Main which generates text like Main article: Article name and a link to the new main article. This is a bit more intuitive to maintain when you're using the visual editor. For example, was recently split into its own article, while  is using section transclusion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"Lab Leak" Covid Origin Becomes Curioser?
Seems the "Lab Leak" origin of Covid may be a bit more supported, based on the release of a 2018 document suggesting, according to a related news report, that "SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t simply brought into a lab by scientists and then released by accident, but rather pieced together in deliberate fashion ... [but] ... a 'gain-of-function experiment gone wrong'". - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Key takeaways:
 * The proposal in question was rejected (didn't happen)
 * This is more evidence of a "toxic shroud of secrecy" than anything else
 * Doesn't appear to have changed anything, i.e. "[does not] come close to changing the consensus view that the pandemic started from a natural source".
 * This could be most useful for adding details on point no. 2. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll notice a significant discussion already underway at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

More viruses that are even closer to SARS-CoV-2 discovered in bats
Not yet peer-reviewed, so probably not ready for inclusion. But keep an eye on this, it will probably be a good thing to include at some point:

Choice quotes:

— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Are these the sample from Laos' bats? Do we know how close their overall genome is to SARS-CoV-2? I think that, unless they are closer than RaTG13, we should omit mentioning them until and if secondary sources, preferably MEDRS, comment on them.  The other approach is to use the main takeaway points from your Nature News source, which is not a big deal:   Forich (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They are closer than RaTG-13. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what secondary sources say about the ACE2 fit as well, which could be a worthwhile update out current mentions of this. Particularly Zoonotic transmission is also supported by the fact that RaTG13 binds to hACE2, although the fit is not optimal. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, so they say (the nature news article above for example) that the ACE2 fit is likely the same as SARS-2 at the beginning of the pandemic: "In an extra step in their study, Eloit and his team showed in the laboratory that the receptor binding domains of these viruses could attach to the ACE2 receptor on human cells as efficiently as some early variants of SARS-CoV-2." —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Disbandedment of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission task force
Secondary sources only as Sachs made the announcement to The Wall Street Journal.

SacrificialPawn (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Winnipeg lab virus theft to Wuhan Institute of Virology
“The lifting of secrecy about the theft of viruses from the Winnipeg lab which were taken to Wuhan Institute of Virology in China would allow for a publicly available study on whether there is any link between that theft and the outbreak of COVID in Wuhan,” — David Matas. ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And of course, this is a debunked conspiracy theory. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory
Editors are invited to participate in this RfC: RfC about how we should use the Frutos source Adoring nanny (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

New commentary piece in Science
FYI: Commentary by Michael Worobey, and accompanying Washington Post and New York Times articles to evaluate additional weight and context. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, we are currently working on this at the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 talk page, fyi. Forich (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Lancet Editor re Covid Origin Conflict of Interest
News about Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, only just now disclosing a conflict of interest of lead author Dr. Peter Daszak, who published views denouncing the notion that Covid originated from a lab leak, worth a consideration for a possible edit in the main article? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:DAILYMAIL isn't a reliable source. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition to reliability concerns, Horton's statement is not particularly relevant to the lab leak theory. Daszak's conflict may well be relevant. But I don't think Horton's statement is. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Adoring nanny agreed. We already discuss Daszak's COI accusations in the article. We don't need Horton's statement about it too. Probably WP:DUE for Daszak's article though, just not with this source. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Transition of "WHO Convened Study" to "SAGO"
Primary sources:



Secondary sources on WHO DG announcing formation of SAGO:



Secondary sources on WHO SAGO "Call for experts" (in WHO.int) and response from WHO Joint Study team members (in Nature Mag):



Key points:


 * 1) In a closed-door meeting with WHO members, the WHO DG announced the formation of a new permanent advisory body with broad remit to examine the emergence of pathogens, including COVID-19, proposing further studies on all origin scenarios, which would entail Wuhan laboratory audits.
 * 2) On 20 August 2021, the WHO issued a Call for experts, including biosafety and biosecurity experts, with an application deadline of 17 September 2021, and SCMP report that the body will hold its first meeting by end of September or the beginning of October. WSJ reports there will be hundreds of applicants, including several of the world’s most prominent virologists, including from China.
 * 3) According to Science Magazine, SAGO will take the reins of WHO’s effort to pinpoint the origins of COVID-19, incorporating the WHO Joint Study’s report and recommended studies. Van Kerkhove is quoted as giving its overarching framework and independent evaluation as reasons for the formation of SAGO.
 * 4) Bloomberg, SCMP, Yahoo News and the WSJ report that critics and embattled scientists from the first phase of the WHO’s Joint Study expressed concern, publishing an article in Nature saying that forming a new group runs the risk of adding several months of delay and that the inclusion of Wuhan laboratory audits in SAGO’s proposed studies risked further delays to collaborative work in China.
 * 5) However, as reported in SCMP and Yahoo News, on August 25 2021, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus insisted SAGO will not delay the progress of the studies into the origins of Sars-CoV-2 as the initial WHO highlighted research that could be done without delay in China.
 * 6) SCMP and WSJ reports that China is actively carrying out the studies recommended in the WHO report, but the WHO in the dark or unsure of what studies and how they are being conducted. Van Kerkhove in SCMP: Ideally we would know what is ongoing but we don’t. WSJ says It isn’t clear if those studies will be made available to the new team.
 * 7) WSJ reports that the the WHO Joint Study team has been disbanded and that the new body can face resistance from China which argues that any new inquiry should focus on other countries, including the U.S and quotes Xi Jinping telling the U.N. General Assembly that “China will continue to support and engage in global science-based origins tracing and stands firmly opposed to political maneuvering in whatever form.” and Lawrence Gostin saying "The question is, will it be enough?” ... “China still holds all the cards, the WHO lacks power and it’s inconceivable to me that a new committee will be able to negotiate access to China…This is building a beautiful committee with nowhere to go.”

Further points:


 * 1) David Fidler remark in SCMP on the difficulty of depoliticisation.
 * 2) Koopmans concerns in Yahoo News on the overemphasis on lab leak and the need for access to blood specimens from late 2019.
 * 3) Van Kerkhove comments in Stat about not fingerpointing and blaming.

I hope this summary is accurate and that editors find it useful for updating the article.

SacrificialPawn (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see these are two separate things. The original WHO-convened study was formed specifically for the investigations about COVID; SAGO seems to be about infectious diseases origins in general. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SAGO's remit will include COVID-19 origin tracing. SacrificialPawn (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So still separate things. One will do a lot of what the other also did, again. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One is picking up where the other left off. I called it "transition", but we can call it by anything else that is suitable. Van Kerkhove declined to say the Joint Study team were "fired", but the WSJ say they were "disbanded". SacrificialPawn (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're not confusing the Lancet commission with the WHO study team? Both appear to be now defunct, but I have only seen the Lancet commission described as "disbanded." — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The WSJ article I cite describes the original WHO team as disbanded. A separate WSJ article covers the Lancet commission disbandment, which I will cite in a new post below. SacrificialPawn (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , please can you also provide a media analysis of Peter Ben Embarek’s comments on Danish television? LondonIP (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Way too much conduct dispute mixed into this for it to have any chance of proceeding with level-headed content discussion. Any editors who want to propose an improvement to the article, go ahead. Accusations of editor or admin misconduct don't belong here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , and  it has been over a month since  suggested updating this article with the WHO convened study team disbanding and the SAGO formation, but no one has added it to the article. Perhaps they were too busy increasing protection of other pages, like DRASTIC, over false accusation of editing warring . It is time to decrease the protection of this page and the lab leak page to assure wider participation and more balanced coverage. It is you the administrators who have been the most disruptive editors in this topic area, slanting coverage by taking out editors from one side.--Francesco espo (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I see, there has been no concrete proposal as to how to include this (there was some discussion, but it died off: that happens, and isn't a sign that this needs decreased protection. In fact, in the light of poor edits by non-EC accounts on similar pages, like this one, it suggests there might eventually be a need for protecting even more pages); and the quantity of sources is enough to put off many. If SP wanted to make a clear proposal, nobody prevented them from using the sources above to write a proposed edit and use Edit extended-protected (or ping with it). As to the reminder of the WP:ASPERSIONS, that is also unhelpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  02:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, this comment was initially part of a collapse template covering Francesco espo's comment and RandomCanadian's reply just above. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with on this. Editors should not have to go through the filters of other editors just to update the page with such essential information. , please stop hatting discussions here and on others talk pages. If this isn't the right venue for this discussion, I would like to hear what, and  say. LondonIP (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I was pinged again; Special:Diff/1053142511/1053232605 is what I said in response to the previous ping. Editors affected by page protection in this area should take the time to gain experience in other, less contentious areas of the project, such as in the ways described at the Task Center or the community portal, before jumping into COVID19 editing. If there really is a need for a discussion of a specific protection, please see Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions for details about appealing discretionary sanctions. This too, however, isn't a process a new user should jump into. The required consensus for overturning the sanction is still unlikely to be found, and a discussion that results in "no consensus" after a week of heated discussion is primarily a waste of time for everyone involved. It's okay if you're interested in wasting your time, but please find a way to do so without involving the time of others. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've pinged me to this page. I have no memory of having ever edited it and I have no idea what any of this is about. Regardless, I'm afraid I do not have the time atm to look into this (whatever it is). El_C 10:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The WHO team was not "disbanded," it simply only existed for the writing of the report. One WSJ article uses the term "disbanded" but no other articles about the topic use that phrasing. Every other article about the topic simply refers to the original study as "concluded" or "done" or "finished." So the term "disbanded" would likely be WP:UNDUE and making a mountain out of a molehill. If something doesn't exist because it's served its function, it wouldn't be described as "disbanded." And doing so would make a non-event into an event, for the sake of WP:POV pushing, namely denigrating the original report. If, instead, you are talking about the Lancet commission, that is already mentioned in the article: The task force plans to analyse scientific findings and does not plan to visit China.[205] In June 2021, The Lancet announced that Daszak had recused himself from the commission.[208] On September 25 2021, the task force work was folded after procedural concerns and a need to broaden its scope to examine transparency and government regulation of risky laboratory research. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The WHO team was not "disbanded.", do you have a source for this? cited the WSJ for this phrase when you questioned them on that. You also say Every other article about the topic simply refers to the original study as "concluded" or "done" or "finished." but most sources say there was supposed to be a second phase of the WHO-convened study, which the member of the study themselves say in their August oped in Nature. LondonIP (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * yep, and SAGO replaced that second phase. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And the sources which say this was how it was meant to be? LondonIP (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We should make sure we have a reliable source for whatever we say. Which would include whether or not the original 10-member investigative team had a stated intention to either continue until a definitive origin was found, or only through their initial report. We might simply need to say "a new team was formed". Bakkster Man (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree we should use only reliable sources. I would like to see the reliable sources that supports the "a new team was formed" choice of words instead of the disbanded term, sourced from the WSJ piece cyted by . Francesco espo (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this at the time, I was kindly reminded by and wanted to take a look. Even using the originally provided sources, most of them seem to refer broadly to the team being new, with the specific term "disbanded" being specific to WSJ (let me know if I've missed it elsewhere). And I'll add, my concern is primarily with wikivoicing any potentially editorialized done by secondary sources along the lines of WP:WTW, to avoid implying something instead of directly saying it. Especially if the term is used only by one secondary source, rather than a plurality.
 * Quick look at the above sources shows: The Telegraph said the existing group of international experts... will effectively be dissolved in its existing form, Science said Tedros also says WHO will create a new body to conduct the next phase of studies into the emergence of the virus, an unexpected move that concerns some scientists, including at least one member of an existing mission the agency organized to study COVID-19's origin. "I'm worried about delays and of course it's a bit strange," says virologist and veterinarian Marion Koopmans of Erasmus University Medical Center. "We're losing valuable time." and The World Health Organization (WHO) still hopes to lead the way—even after a first effort got mired in the politics of this divisive issue. and Bloomberg said WHO officials said additional studies are already underway, if not by the same group of scientists. The agency has always expected that there would be many missions and long-term collaboration, with different teams working on a variety of topics, said Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s technical lead officer on Covid.
 * I'd like to see us get something into the article on this topic, we're probably past due. I do still think something along the lines of "The WHO announced they would form a new, permanent team for investigating pandemic-capable pathogens which would take over investigations into the origins of COVID-19" would be a better way to summarize the topic, prior to discussing the details of why and how. Per the quotes in Science, it does appear the change in investigation team was "unexpected" rather than planned, though the expectations for Phase 1 to be foundational rather than definitive is also notable. Covering both of those concepts without conflating them seems to me the best way forward. As for the reasons why to team is being rebuilt, our sources seem to indicate political pressures (both from and directed towards China) as the primary one. The fight over access to raw data (including local medical records, blood samples, animal surveys, and WIV records) being the most notable, including criticisms that the reforming of the team may delay the process beyond scientific viability (particularly with antibody surveys). We can probably reiterate the Daszak COI concerns from Phase 1 as well. It's also probably noteworthy that geographical representation and gender balance are cited goals of SAGO as well (having previously been criticized: Although the team members are highly qualified, eight out of ten are men and investigators from Europe dominate the group; none is from Africa or South America, says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown University, who is based in Seattle, Washington. “It could be more representative of the larger global scientific community,” she says.). I think that's all more useful context than quibbling over the word "disbanded" and either asking it to, or worrying it will, carry the burden of describing the circumstances of the change. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The "disbanded" term is even used in Science Magazine by Jon Cohen who is a good journalist but not impartial to the lab leak theory. I am concerned about "See also" subtitle you added with the link to Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens, as it is independent of the defunct Phase 2 of the now defunct WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2. The WHO DG met with the Chinese premier in Beijing recently but there has been no confirmation that China will cooperate with SAGO on COVID-19 origins . Please fix this and add a SAGO section per SacrificialPawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faiqaqazi844 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent related news worth considering?
Recent related news worth considering? - albeit based on a Preprint study - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably not given it's an editorial and a preprint, and you should already know this as an experienced editor. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* aware of concerns re Editorials and Preprints - simply posted, not to seriously consider adding to the Main article, but perhaps to be somewhat aware of possible relevant information re the Main article nonetheless - *entirely* ok with me to delete the post of course - iac - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

More relevant new studies (2/26/2022), also Preprints, of possible interest  - *entirely* ok with me to delete this post of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

New valuable sources (Nature, Science, Zenodo) to add to this page
1. Michael Worobey (evolutionary biologist) published in Science about the origins. Assumably the link with the Wuhan market is valid.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454

2. Two studies have been published that confirm the link.

https://zenodo.org/record/6299116#.Yj2I1ye0szR

https://zenodo.org/record/6291628#.Yj2Iwye0szQ

3. A new study (preprint) from Nature, in Research Square discusses surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 within the HSM.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1370392/v1 Annemarieverschoor (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * All of this is still awaiting peer review. They'll likely be useful once reviewed. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Two studies have been published that confirm the link". In fact, unpublished or published, they do not.  The first says "suggests" right in the abstract, the second says "very likely" *in the title*.  That's not a confirmation, it's more hypothesis.  And they can't confirm it, because they don't have sufficient evidence.  And unless the Chinese authorities release the full story from Wuhan labs in 2019, or unless they find a clear next of kin in the animal kingdom which they can prove wasn't infected by a human, it is exceedingly unlikely that they will have scientific "confirmation".  And since neither of those things are likely to happen, at least not until it makes no sense not to question the relevance, we're likely to still be debating this in a hundred years.  Or at least 15.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbatsat (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bakkster Man i think the Worobey perspective might actually be peer reviewed from this text in the acknowledgments "Thanks to four anonymous reviewers." But overall, this does not change the fact that it is WP:PRIMARY. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 05:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Less likely"
In regard to this revert. What are the 8 review articles? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOLABLEAK sums them up pretty well. Referenced there are 7 review articles and 1 report (the WHO). — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant 7 review articles and the WHO report, good catch, thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The WHO report is a primary source and subject to a political scandal, so it is not usable in the context of COVID-19 origins. Your WP:NOLABLEAK essay needs to be updated if it is to be of any use going forward.Faiqaqazi844 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Faiqaqazi844 (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * you appear to be new around here. I would recommend reading WP:MEDASSESS WP:MEDSCI to understand how we determine scientific consensus on Wikipedia. (edited 22:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does *not* determine scientific consensus, science does. And scientific consensus, on this issue, has *not* been reached. Also, watch the condescension towards new users.  That kind of can and should get a person banned from editing Wikipedia.Fatbatsat (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And scientific consensus, on this issue, has *not* been reached - what do you base this statement on? We may not "determine" consensus but we absolutely "summarize" it based on the available sources. Statements like yours should be supported by sources as described in WP:MEDSCI. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Try learning a little bit about the topic before you start throwing the book at me for no reason, which is literally what I just called you out for. And start by reading this:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02019-5/fulltext  And this as well, news article though it may be, it's from a very solid outlet: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/lab-leak-pandemic-origins-even-messier/620209/   Even the earlier prominent counterargument report contains more than an inkling of what I'm talking about: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00991-0.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbatsat (talk • contribs) 05:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have a PhD in virology, have studied this topic in depth, and have read each of those in great detail before this conversation. The first is a non-peer-reviewed OpEd from a bunch of people, few of whom have any formal training in Virology. Perhaps only Canard. The rest are not experts in this area. Not typically considered a WP:RS for facts. The second, as you stated, is a news report. Not what we use to determine scientific consensus per WP:MEDSCI. The third article you've linked actually supports my point: There is a rough consensus in favor of saying the virus most likely has a natural origin: SARS-CoV-2 is highly unlikely to have been acquired by laboratory workers in the course of viral pathogenesis or gain-offunction experiments....the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event....There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE
Regarding this revert. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, do not state disputed information as fact. Therefore, the revert is wrong. For example, here, which is cited in the article, it says The most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural selection of the virus in an animal host followed by zoonotic transfer.(emphasis added) That's not an absolute statement. Nor should we make one. Similarly here : "It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. (emphasis added) Again, it's not an absolute statement. Even the Frutos source does not make an absolute statement. So the absolute statement in WikiVoice is just plain wrong. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The full sentence is "SARS-CoV-2 appears to have originated in bats and was spread to humans by zoonotic transfer.", emphasis added. We already address your concern with the word "appears"; we don't need to further dilute it because as written, it is indeed a statement of fact not an opinion per WP:WIKIVOICE ("Avoid stating facts as opinions."). VQuakr (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "appears to have" modifies to "originated in bats". The way it is written, "was" applies to "spread to humans by zoonotic transfer." When we introduce the new verb in the indicative mood, it is no longer modified by the "appears to" That's the problem. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I take no exception to removing the word "was". VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Doh. I have this whole thing on the wrong talk page. I'll try again later. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Feel free to cut'n paste move the entire thread over. VQuakr (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thread copy-pasted with the agreement of both participants from [Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory], where I initially posted it erroneously. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should not make statements in the voice of Wikipedia on questions where there is some degree of uncertainty, especially when our article also states that investigations may take years and are hampered by lack of data. There isn't any uncertainty on bats as the original animal host, but there is some uncertainty on the means of zoonotic transfer, and which animal (or human) served as the intermediate host. When there are conflicts between claims in reliable sources, nuance is required. LondonIP (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We should not endlessly describe a controversy when mainstream academic sources are universally in agreement. and then we have one or two papers published by pro-lab leak voices, and, in some cases, even peer reviewed by DRASTIC affiliates who are not virologists. That is not a controversy. The wording "appears to have" is more than enough to accurately summarize the provided sources in my opinion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This seems to be yet another silly quibble about wording in an attempt to support a specific POV. The current wording correctly summarises the sources ("appears to" is not any more of an absolute statement than "most plausible", so that argument is not persuasive), both those cited and the general scholarly consensus. No change required. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It said "was". That's not a fair summary and was grammatically strange to boot. I've changed it to read "appears to". Please check what was actually there at the time before throwing stones. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This version (before you even edited it) had "appears to". A whole talk page section when a simple verb tense change would have fixed everything is indeed a silly quibble. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "...when mainstream academic sources are universally in agreement..." But they are not. And they never have been.  Not on this issue.  The possibility of a lab leak remains scientifically plausible, backed up by peer-reviewed articles, and a small but not tiny minority of qualified scientists.  And yet, a lot of people seem to think that "mainstream academic sources are universally in agreement," and always have been.  If that isn't at least somewhat concerning to you and to other editors here, that seems like a problem.  The media got their hands in this early, no doubt, and so did the WHO, and so did the Trumpites, for sure.  But that doesn't change the (scientific) facts that that the matter is still one of wide open debate. And Wikipedia is a place for facts, not poorly thought out statements about universal agreement. Fatbatsat (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the most mainstream, highest quality, academic source that disputes the article's description of the likelihood of explanations? For most of the pandemic, the high quality journal sources have indeed been universally agreed that natural zoonosis was most plausible. Dissent has not been found in Nature, Science, or The Lancet, but instead in non-mainstream lower quality journals (if they were peer reviewed at all). Wikipedia can't distinguish between unfair suppression, and low quality work by fringe authors (see WP:RGW).
 * More importantly, what in the article's current text do you think should change as a result? Neither of the bolded statements in the original comment in this section remain in the article's text. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
There are a (minority, peer-reviewed) scientific opinions, completely plausible and in no way disproven, that Covid-19 escaped from a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Why is this hypothesis (not the same as "speculation", as wrongly stated in the article) not being given fair voice, both here and in related articles on Wikipedia? It appears that this and related articles have not been properly updated over the last year due to confirmation bias and past media reports. Thanks. Fatbatsat (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a (minority, peer-reviewed) scientific opinions - then you are free to find those peer-reviewed papers and present them here. Until you do so, your proof by assertion is going to be rightfully dismissed as proof of nothing whatsoever. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with. The burden to find peer reviewed papers should not be only editors who favour one hypothesis, and WP:NOLABLEAK/WP:YESLABLEAK factionalization should not be encouraged. The first paper alluding to non natural origins as "reasonable" is Baric Graham 2020, followed by a more descriptive paper by Sallard et al 2021, and there have been many more since. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sallard et al does not use the word "reasonable" at any point. It is also actually from September 2020, it was just translated in 2021. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I didn't say Sallard et al uses the word "reasonable." The English version of was reworked by the authors, and not just translated. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Importantly, I do not believe, from the available source, that it was re-peer reviewed. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what, from the available source, makes you believe this paper wasn't re-peer reviewed as any journal like this would do? ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Correspondance in The Lancet are typically not peer-reviewed: "Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed." and this one in particular, does not have any other dates in "publication history" such as "Reviews delivered" "Revisions delivered" etc. Such submissions are not typically peer-reviewed, btw. They're more akin to Op-Eds. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, I did not say anything about the Lancet, just like I didn't say Sallard et al uses the word reasonable. Sallard et al published their work as a review article and meta analysis in two peer reviewed journals. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Better read this, the whole thing not just the spark notes. It's definitely peer-reviewed.  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02019-5/fulltext  Also, a careful read of the early counterargument is actually quite relevant here:  https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00991-0.pdf  Also, please read this, though it isn't peer reviewed: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/lab-leak-pandemic-origins-even-messier/620209/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbatsat (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Correspondence papers in the Lancet are not peer reviewed. They are akin to opinion columns. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Gain-of-function research at WIV
I was surprised to see that the fact that gain-of-function research was being performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology isn't mentioned in this article at all. Was some kind of consensus reached on this point, or is this an oversight? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Discussed in the dedicated article COVID-19 lab leak theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a rather terse response. Are you saying you disagree that a one or two sentence summary of the controversy would be worthwhile here? (Sincerely asking.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think adding the details to this article would be WP:UNDUE weight and/or lack the necessary detail of the dedicated article to be WP:NPOV. As that article mentions, whether or not the research is described as GoF is disputed. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Gain of function research was done and even published by WIV team from 2015 forward. Should be mentioned. HL3133 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is meant by "Gain of function" in your context? These are not easy terms to define. In the broadest definition, basically any form of virology research would be included. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * common sense understanding for GOF - virus gains transmissibility and/or virulence. The 2015 Baric (UNC) and Shi (Wuhan labs) paper was a milestone, and its Discussion section speaks for itself. Pls feel free to read it if you haven't. Authors themselves issued warning. HL3133 (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What connection does this have to SARS-CoV-2? As far as I know, the only connection is a conspiracy theory which alleges that secret work was being conducted involving engineering of SARS-like viruses with the aim of making them more virulent. This has been debunked as not possible given the SARS-CoV-2 genome, in multiple scholarly publications. As an aside, I have a PhD in virology and have read this paper many times, yes. It does not change that bringing the paper up in this context is not an evidence-based assertion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact you immediately use the "conspiracy theory" label shows your non-objectivity in this matter. Dr David Baltimore of Cal tech has stated lab can't be ruled out, as did WHO SAGO last week. The topic at hand is to state the facts, WIV and UNC had created novel GOF virus in 2015 (and later). It is a fact, regardless of how many phds you have. No one is saying this must had lead to SARS2. Wiki is for stating the facts, facts are WIV has engaged in creating novel chimeric viruses, PERIOD. HL3133 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Lab leak is not 1:1 with genetic engineering. Arguments from authority have no weight here (e.g. Dr. Baltimore has said lots of things, does not make them true). I think you would benefit from reading WP:DUE and WP:RSUW. I think this conversation, overall, is done as soon as anyone says "Wiki is for stating facts, and facts are [insert my position]." Good luck with that. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The scope of this page is about investigations and some sources have said this needs to be investigated, so it is WP:DUE. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has performed research into bat coronaviruses since 2005, and identified the RaTG13 virus in 2013, which is the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2. This sentence from the article includes the word "research", I suppose that could encompass GoF as well. Is a shout out to GoF specifically needed? Not sure. Side note, do we want to update the sentence with the stipulation that RatG13 was the most closely related virus studied before the sars2 pandemic started. 2600:8804:6600:45:45E1:9EE8:3BDA:4571 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Several including many
The lead wording is unfortunate as several is fewer than many. Probably should say something like 'as well as' instead of 'including'. PaulT2022 (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. "conspiracy theory" is a subset of "explanation" so not changing the 'including'. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you!
 * I think 'including' makes the sentence equivocal. In current form, it suggests that conspiracy theories are either subset of falsifiable hypotheses (which doesn't make sense, and was discussed at length by User:KristinaLu in Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19/Archive 6), or that other hypotheses are indistinguishable from conspiracy theories (thus bundled into 'explanations'). The referenced Reuters article certainly gives some support to the latter. However, since it was published, the WHO opinion seems to have somewhat morphed, and articles published in recent months don't talk about other explanations dismissively (see, for example, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202100189).
 * Apologies for bringing up the old discussion; not trying to dispute what was achieved previously, but either don't see how the modern sources (or rest of the lead and the article for that matter) support this sentence.
 * Not saying that what this sentence says is necessarily wrong, just that my preference would be to source such sentence from a modern analysis of hypotheses in a scientific journal, instead of summarising three dated news sources, two of which don't discuss origin hypotheses at all. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)