Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2/Archive 8

"deliberate bioengineering of the virus has been ruled out"
What sources support the claim that "deliberate bioengineering of the virus has been ruled out" for both the bio-weapon conspiracy theory and accidental release from gain-of-function research? Numerous reliable sources contradict this, stating that the accidental release of a virus engineered via gain-of-function research is still a viable hypothesis. Stonkaments (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Science source does not say that. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The citation provided (Andersen et al 2020) says: "It is improbable [emphasis added] that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation..." That is very different from ruling out bioengineering definitively, and it should not be attributed broadly to "experts", as it comes solely from the conclusion of one primary source. I believe we should update the article to more accurately represent and attribute these claims. Stonkaments (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Buzzfeed source does not say that. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not eager to dig through your third and fourth sources, knowing the first two didn't check out. If you continue to contend that the sources state "that the accidental release of a virus engineered via gain-of-function research is still a viable hypothesis" by experts, could you please provide quotes? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed clearly discusses the gain-of-function hypothesis as viable, in comparison with the bioweapon theory which they note most experts dismiss as a conspiracy theory. They write: "More elaborate versions of the theory suppose that scientists at the WIV or another lab in the city were engaged in well-intentioned but risky 'gain of function' experiments, genetically modifying a bat coronavirus to study the changes that would make it more likely to infect people. Suspicion has fallen on Shi because she had earlier collaborated on related experiments run by Ralph Baric, a virologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Baric’s team spliced the spike protein from one of Shi’s bat coronaviruses, which it uses to latch on to the cells it infects, into another coronavirus that had been adapted to infect mice. Shi has denied running any similar gain-of-function experiments since that research was published in 2015. But secrecy surrounding research at the WIV and other labs means that speculation about this possibility continues." Stonkaments (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the theory and stating that speculation continues does not equate to a statement that contradicts that the theory "has been ruled out by experts". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's implied, no? When they discuss the bioweapon theory, they clearly say it is regarded as a conspiracy theory by most experts. The fact that they don't make the same statement about the gain-of-function leak theory implies that it does not have the same level of opposition from experts. Regardless, it appears that editors won't put much weight on any sources that aren't published scientific journals, so it's a moot point. Stonkaments (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed and Vox are not WP:RSes for matters of science, they are trumped by a consensus of literature sources. That Science letter-to-the-editor does not mention "gain-of-function," "engineering" or "deliberate" in any way. It does not support your claims here. The MedPageToday link is an opinion piece written by an Anesthesiologist, so not in any way a relevant expert. The burden is on you,, to provide evidence and gain consensus on the deletion of content you're putting forward, given that we have a small consensus from various editors contributing to that section. And the bar of this is high, given the many MEDRSes we have cited here to support the statement in question. So far, I don't think you've met that bar.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's another source published in a scientific journal, which says: "The leak scenario involves researchers tinkering around with a virus, perhaps in gain of function experiments..." This clearly shows that accidental escape from gain-of-function research has not been ruled out. Stonkaments (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is one version of the lab leak theory. There are other versions. The fact that many versions co-exist does not mean that they have equal probability. Experts have largely ruled out that version, as shown by the sources we have in that section, and most of all, based on the many sources over at WP:NOLABLEAK. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * New Scientist also is not a very reputable journal, given its very poor stats on SciMago, so it would be WP:UNDUE for us to give it much credence, as per WP:RSUW. It's very very far from a MEDRS or high-quality RS. That article is basically an opinion piece. Honestly might as well be published in Medical Hypotheses. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS/AC: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." Are there any sources that directly say that most experts have ruled out a virus engineered via gain-of-function research? Otherwise any such claim would be WP:SYNTH, and we need to attribute it narrowly to the individual sources making the claim. Stonkaments (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From the WHO report: 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. citing . We've had this discussion before, several times. Worth noting two things: the text specifically says that it's deliberate bioengineering for release that was ruled out. Later discussion concluded that the diagram they presented for the scenario included only general viral mutations unavoidable with replication, not "Adaptation, transmissibility increase". I think there's room for us to either reword this to be more clear, or make a note or comment in the article or its code describing this so we can avoid repeating the discussion (at least, due to that lack of context in the article, someday we'll have actual new info to replace it). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And this is exactly the "scientific consensus statement in RS" we need. The WHO, upon examining all of the evidence available to the, "did not consider" the hypothesis because it "has been ruled out by other scientists". Sure, people may disagree with that - and that's their right. But when the WHO (a RS) states in no uncertain terms that they believe the issue has a consensus among scientists such that they don't even need to go over it, then that's about the strongest source for a "scientific consensus" statement in WP voice you can get. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's significant that they only say that deliberate bioengineering for release was ruled out. The article previously included the wording "for release", but it has been lost in recent edits, so at the very least that should be restored (and probably clarified/reworded−I initially found the meaning of the phrase "for release" unclear without the additional context). Also, the latter half of the sentence ("with remaining investigations considering the possibility of a collected natural virus inadvertently infecting laboratory staff during the course of study") implies that only a natural virus lab escape scenario is being investigated, but that is contradicted by one of its cited sources (the New Scientist article), which discusses the gain-of-function lab leak possibility. Stonkaments (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * New Scientist isn’t really an academic science journal. As to whether any science articles have ruled out engineering - yes, this is the conclusion of the first major work on this topic, Andersen et al, which remains the authoritative work on the issue, cited approvingly and over 1,500 times. Surely if you’re arguing on this page about this topic you’re at least aware it exists. -Darouet (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mentioned Andersen et al above. They did not in fact rule out bioengineering; they say: "It is improbable [emphasis added] that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation..." Stonkaments (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * see again Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 for discussion on the somewhat fuzzy middle ground of GoFR relating to the WHO report. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have read the sources I cited more thoroughly. Frutos et al. (recent review paper, after the WHO report) says the following three things, very clearly:


 * And


 * I think that seals the deal as far as "deliberate engineering" is concerned. Frutos is quite clear that the scenario found unlikely [but not ruled out] is the "accidental infection of laboratory staff working on naturally occurring Sarbecoviruses". He also spends quite a lot of time refuting many of the claims about deliberate engineering, under section 1.1. Unless you can find an equally good source (review paper focused on the origin of the virus in a reputable journal) which says otherwise, but given that my attempts so far (not much progress because it's a waste of time when we keep getting bombarded with Buzzfeed, WSJ and the like) haven't come up with anything promising, with most scientific papers giving short shrift or entirely ignoring any controversy about the topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, the Frutos source is just prior to the publication of the WHO report, and I didn't see a direct reference to it on a quick search. Doesn't mean it's not a solid source that can improve a lot of our citations, though. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For your convenience, here is a direct mention: (section 1.5) "This hypothesis has been considered as “extremely unlikely” by the official WHO investigation team" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suspect that was between preliminary findings and full report, hence the lack of a citation at the bottom. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link; it's hard to keep up on all the separate threads of this discussion! This Nature article was cited as a good, reliable summary of the current state of understanding, and they provide yet another example showing that the possibility of an engineered virus lab leak hasn't been ruled out. They say: "In theory, COVID-19 could have come from a lab in a few ways. Researchers might have collected SARS-CoV-2 from an animal and maintained it in their lab to study, or they might have created it by engineering coronavirus genomes....There is currently no clear evidence to back these scenarios, but they aren’t impossible." Stonkaments (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the Nature article is referring to claims made by others, not necessarily the WHO's evaluation. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's right, but of course we mustn't rely solely on the WHO. If other scientists still consider the engineered virus lab leak hypothesis viable, and the WHO itself only ruled out deliberate engineering for release, that should inform how we present the information. Stonkaments (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We should present the information in proportion to its presentation in scientific peer-reviewed literature. Over at WP:NOLABLEAK, you'll see that most scientific studies in reliable peer-reviewed well-regarded journals portray the GoFR theory as not worth considering. It doesn't matter what a small minority of non-virologist scientists think. This is analogous to climate change, where some non-climate-trained scientists have fringe theories, that we don't really cover in any considerable depth. that's what WP:RSUW tells us to do.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree. While the WHO is one of our most authoritative sources and the best starting place (IMO), if we have other strong (but contradictory) WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources then we shouldn't wikivoice this and instead move it to the WHO section. Maybe I've missed it in all the chaos around the topic, but I believe we've only got some non-virological journal articles (in vivo being the strongest IIRC) proposing this alternative. I'm somewhat hesitant to support adding a section on the idea if that's the best source we have and we'd have to make very clear that it's a WP:FRINGE view, but I'm not necessarily 100% opposed to it. If you think it could be well sourced, NPOV, and recognize FRINGE; I welcome you to start sandboxing it in a new section of User:Bakkster_Man/Origin Sandbox and I'll lend a hand to see if we can get it to a reasonable state for an RfC-type discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

, I think where we're getting confused here is the conflation of "ruled out" with "impossible." That's not really how scientific theories work. A theory can be, for all intents and purposes, be "ruled out" but still technically "possible." Basically nothing, no conspiracy, no absurd theory in science is "impossible." It's "possible" that aliens will land tomorrow and declare the entire human race to be an experiment into the efficacy of balogna in preventing Alzheimer's, but it isn't very probable. Likewise, the genetic engineering GoFR theory cannot be described accurately as "impossible," but our sources indicate it is so improbable, so extremely unlikely, that most relevant experts have ruled it out as not worth considering. That's why the article is written the way it is.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and I agree with the distinction. But which sources are you referring to, that so strongly dismiss the GoFR theory? Because the only two sources cited in the article for the claim about bio-engineering being ruled out are: 1) The WHO report, which only rules out bioengineering for deliberate release; and 2) Andersen et al, which is quite dated at this point and merely calls the lab manipulation theory "improbable". Stonkaments (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What about purple cows in Arkansas Frutos et al. (cited and quoted above)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They found no evidence for the GoFR theory. That is not enough to support the broad claim that experts have ruled it out, especially when other sources show that others have not ruled it out. Stonkaments (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry for necroposting, but is the calculation that it would have taken >15 years for RaTG13 to mutate into something like SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture useful for inclusion into this or any other article? Ain92 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Serial passage and the phrase "deliberate engineering of the virus has been ruled out by experts"
Does no one editing this article have even a cursory understanding of current genetic engineering techniques?

Segreto, R., Deigin, Y., McCairn, K. et al. Should we discount the laboratory origin of COVID-19?. Environ Chem Lett (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0

Sirotkin K, Sirotkin D. Might SARS-CoV-2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?: A potential explanation for much of the novel coronavirus' distinctive genome. Bioessays. 2020;42(10):e2000091. doi:10.1002/bies.202000091

Just because a secondary source claims that something has been ruled out does no make it so. One needs to read other secondary sources before making such a strong claim. If those other sources are ignored, there is a problem.KristinaLu (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Even the first source you cite accepts that zoonotic transmission is the consensus: The near-consensus view of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a natural zoonosis (Zhu et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2020b; Zhou et al. 2020b). Bats are thought to be the natural reservoir for SARS-related coronaviruses (SARS-r CoVs) (Li et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2006) and have been identified as the ancestral source from which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) evolved (Janies et al. 2008; Sheahan et al. 2008). And their conclusion was the amount of peculiar genetic features identified in SARS-CoV-2′s genome does not rule out a possible gain-of-function origin, which should be therefore discussed in an open scientific debate.  While I am not a virologist, much of the paper appears to be discussing theoretical possibilities rather than actually showing that there is any real chance that what they are suggesting actually happened. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Claiming near-consensus means there is a consensus is like saying somebody's near-win of an election means they won. Terjen (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It was the manuscript's wording not Hyperion's! I agree, it's like saying "near-homologous." You either are or you aren't, there is no "near." But overall this manuscript is not useful for our purposes, given that not a single working virologist was involved in its authorship, it is entirely an opinion piece, and it was published in a journal that is not reliable for extremely controversial virology claims.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote, you made my point for me. Genomic evidence does not rule out the possibility that the virus was engineered.KristinaLu (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also cannot rule out the possibility that Christina Hendricks will come knocking on my door to declare her everlasting love for me. However, this possibility, while not technically impossible, can probably be safely declared to be highly unlikely.  Hyperion35 (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOLABLEAK section: Against bio-engineering or gain of function particularly "Passaging in animals" and "Passaging in a petri dish".


 * There are fundamental problems vis a vis the Synonymous/Non-synonymous ratio and the presence/location of O-linked glycans on the spike protein. These are a few of the pieces of evidence among many that make virologists like myself conclude (with a fair amount of certainty, but not 100%) that neither engineering nor large-scale lab passaging of the virus likely occurred prior to the outbreak. -- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The section cites a self-published source. The article sourced is apparently not even on a preprint server. Are you the author of this? If so, please stop trying to insert your unpublished material into Wikipedia.KristinaLu (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I linked you to a user space essay. Reliable source requirements do not apply to user space in the way that they apply to article space. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. But right now we are on the talk page of an actual article. In other words, your self-authored POV that isn't even up on biorxiv can't be considered when deciding on whether the sentence in question stays in this article. Again, this article needs to remain neutral. You yourself agree that the question at hand isn't entirely falsifiable based on current evidence. Therefore, just by an epistemological argument alone the sentence needs to be cut.KristinaLu (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * my Reddit post is A) not the basis for that claim and B) based on inline cited secondary sources which are themselves part of the basis for this sentence. The sentence in this article is based on cited WP:RS sources. which of those sources do you have a problem with? Or are you saying your original research is the reason for why it should be cut?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't need to have a problem with any of the sources in order for the sentence to be removed.. The issues is that you know that other published, peer-reviewed sources exist, and you are choosing to ignore them.KristinaLu (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which source am I ignoring? The Segreto et al piece in Env Chem Letters? That article is not a RS for this question. A) none of its authors have any training in virology. B) that journal is not very reliable for peer-reviewing any publication about virology, given that the words "virus" and "virology" do not appear in its descriptions or any Web of Science index search terms. See also evaluations of the journal's content areas of expertise and impact  . Its editors are not experts in this field, so they are not as able to determine what is and is not good scientific reasoning in the field of virology as subject-area journals (Journal of Virology, Medical Reviews of Virology, or Current Opinion in Virology) or broad-topic journals (e.g. Nature, Science). The editors of Env Chem Lett also are likely not as good at picking high-quality peer reviewers for the same reason. Overall, these are the reasons why that piece is not a RS for these extremely controversial claims.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

could you please take this argument to the other section of this page about this exact thing. And examine the arguments made there and respond to them. Because repeatedly addressing this claim is a huge drain on wiki resources.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I created this talk section. It is based on the lab technique know as serial passage. It is original in its content. Please do not change the title of this section again. The other arguments are irrelevant to this one. Thank you.KristinaLu (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You do not own this section. Anyone can change the talk heading, because we all own this talk section, together. An informative and useful neutral heading is required. See WP:TALKHEADING.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As soon as you admitted yourself that laboratory manipulation of the virus is not 100% ruled out, you have roundly lost this argument. The sources do not agree.KristinaLu (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't treat this as a debate to WP:WIN. It's not AGF and runs afoul of wiki policy. This is a discussion. See my comments above in the other section re: "ruled out" vs "100% impossible." Something can be ruled out by scientists without being 100% impossible. It happens all the time.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is simple. Do you, or don't you agree that the peer-reviewed academic sources I have provided directly conflict with the sentence in question?KristinaLu (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, the Segreto et al source is not reliable for evaluating the veracity of the sentence in question.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To address the Bioessays publication, many of the same criticisms apply as the Env Chem Letters paper. But it is even worse given that it is not an actual research journal. It is a hypotheses journal. AKA papers published there do not actually have to be backed up by direct evidence. You can just publish commentary or essays without in-line citations and without anyone evaluating the actual verifiability of your claims. The source in question is not a review. It isn't a research article. It's a commentary and proposed hypothesis. For these reasons (and the reasons for the Env Chem Letters paper as described above), that Bioessays paper is not a reliable source to evaluate the veracity of the sentence in question.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess we can take your silence to mean that you agree. It seems like we are all in agreement that there are peer-reviewed academic sources that directly conflict with the sentence in question.KristinaLu (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Putting words in another editor's mouth is incredibly bad form. Just FYI, that sort of behavior comes across as a failure to AGF and it makes people question whether there is any point, or really any reasonable possibility, of having a productive conversation with you.  There is nothing wrong a rather large difference with between asking do you agree with me on this statement? and asserting that another editor agrees with you when it seems obvious from their comments that they do not. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * and, please answer the following question directly. (It's a yes or no question.) Do you, or don't you agree that the peer-reviewed academic sources I have provided directly conflict with the sentence in question?KristinaLu (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , that is not a yes or no question. It is also not really a relevant question.  Shibbolethink has already addressed multiple problems with the sources you have provided, including the fact that one of your sources is not even peer-reviewed.  I have also addressed the content of one of your sources.  I am deply concerned that you may be either misunderstanding what other editors are telling you, or you appear to be possibly misrepresenting other editors' comments and views.  I am also concerned because your comments come across as trying to "win" an argument, and because you appear to be attempting to justify an a priori assumption. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a direct yes or no question. The question as to whether the sources are WP:RS is another question. Surely, you can admit to the futility of multiple editors arguing several points at once and not directly addressing an explicit point. I again ask that you and answer the following:  Do you, or don't you agree that the peer-reviewed academic sources I have provided directly conflict with the sentence in question?KristinaLu (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that the statement should be edited to reflect the WP:OPINIONs of the "experts" cited in the references provided - using WP:INTEXT attribution. We have statements from Ralph Baric and David Baltimore countering the premise of the statement, outweighing all MEDRSs published on the subject to date. The Proximal Origin paper should either be removed for WP:FALSEBALANCE or juxtaposed with the Relman et al Science letter for proper WP:BALANCE, given all the reasons discussed above. CutePeach (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any WP:RSes that show that their opinions are notable and that including them would be affording due weight? Because I am aware of no such sources. It is frankly difficult to find any RSes that even mention the names "Yuri Deigin" or "Rossana Segreto." And even if you could find such RSes, we would need to figure out what would be "proportional coverage" of these minority views. From my cursory searches of the literature recently, I could not find a single mention of these 2 publications in any review articles published in scientific journals, or frankly even in any news-based RSes (See Altmetric: ).-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Some potential consensus proposals, based on my read of how we ended up with the text we have currently. Suggestions could be taken individually or together. Each of them carry some RS, NPOV, and DUE concerns in varying measures, but framing the discussion this way may help us better find a consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Text originally came from the WHO report wording: 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. One possibility would be to specifically attribute this statement to the WHO.
 * Remove all evaluation of likelihood from this section, as it is the only one of the four WHO-evaluated explanations listed in this section. This would better match the original intention of providing an entirely neutral description of the possibilities to avoid confusion when referring to one or the other, with any evaluation happening elsewhere.
 * Add section specifically for lab engineering, where it can be more neutrally described as a fringe perspective without affecting the discussion of the lab leak section we're discussing currently.
 * Thank you for your suggestions. I would like to point out a bit of a semantic issue here, that is around the term "engineered". There are common lab protocols in which a virus (or bacteria) can be altered, where by convention the literature may not directly use the term "engineered". For the sake of clarity to non-experts, perhaps the word "engineered" should be avoided. We can also remove anything presuming any intent by those who might have altered the virus (eg. if serial passage was used in order to facilitate the evolution of a SARS-like bat CoV so that other mammalian cell lines could be readily infected for the sole purpose of well-intentioned medical research). In other words, the section could deal with two possibilities, that someone working in the lab was infected with a virus that was either:
 * a) Naturally occurring and being studied by the lab, the first infected person being infected by a virus very close to that found in a host animal in vivo in a non-laboratory setting
 * or
 * b) Had been intentionally altered in some way (regardless of the nature of said intent), perhaps by serial passage as this is the method of alteration most commonly suggested in existing literature.KristinaLu (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I really think "intentionally manipulated" or "laboratory manipulation" are the best terms to encompass both genomic engineering (CRISPR etc) and serial passaging.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree.KristinaLu (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean since we have a few non-WHO sources which also support the sentence in question about deliberate engineering (or laboratory manipulation is another way to say it), I do not think it would be appropriate to change this sentence to be only about the WHO. I also think the word "engineering" is appropriate since it is how most lay people think about this topic. I would also accept "laboratory manipulation" personally. I agree that passaging also should count, but I would say that it is also intentional. A virus will not passage in a novel species or cell line without human intervention. Somebody needs to actually take liquid from one petri dish (or nostril) and put it into another. That's intent. Calling passaging "non-intentional" just further obfuscates the language. But, again, our sources also support the idea that a passaged virus is not very likely. Including the Kristian Andersen piece, which directly answers the question of cell culture and lab animal passaging. They go into detail about the glycans, the cleavage site, the lack of any evidence of reverse genetics. And the mutation rate. Also worth saying that, although this is OR, several papers have shown how the virus changes in cell culture, and no such changes were observed in the initial sequence.  This just adds to the low likelihood of manipulation via any kind of cell culture. We had a whole discussion about this recently, and the WHO source mentions "manipulation." To my reading, that includes "passaging." So again, I think it is quite clear from our sources that "laboratory manipulation" has been ruled out, including any passaging experiments. Seriously we've talked about this several times before. Search the talk page archives here and Talk:COVID-19 misinformation.  Do you remember that conversation we were having about what the WHO report had about lab manipulation? And its diagrams? Anyway, all of which to say, I'm quite convinced the MEDRSes and RSes (BEST SOURCES) have ruled out passaging as well. We don't need to relitigate old wounds a zillion times around this when no new sources have been provided to overturn that consensus formed on this talk page.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of this came from previous discussion in Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, primarily about the WHO report's description and conclusions. Particularly Figure 5 from the WHO Report's "Possible Pathways of Emergence" section, which shows "evolution" in the lab pathway, but not "Adaptation, transmissibility increase." As mentioned in the above discussion section, this seems to allow for some incidental variation as is unavoidable in viral replication, but doesn't include gain-of-function (and possibly not even serial passage).
 * Expanding beyond the WHO-evaluated hypothesis just makes it trickier to delineate the various related hypotheses. Not everyone refers to the same set of circumstances as a 'lab leak', which is part of why I suggested splitting the description here between what the WHO evaluated, and what scientists like Baltimore said remains plausible (if unlikely). What I think needs to be avoided is implying that the WHO's report evaluated GoFR (for example) as 'extremely unlikely', when they actually did rule it out beforehand. And, unfortunately, they weren't explicit enough regarding serial passage to know if they considered it ruled out explicitly, or only malicious design as a bioweapon. Also unfortunately, we don't have really high quality journal sources describing the proposed serial passage or GoFR pathways (something I agree with others on the two sources you listed originally). Which isn't to say we can't include them, but without mainstream secondary sources that does point to their being WP:FRINGE/ALT] and described as non-mainstream appropriately. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding secondary sources, both the Andersen et al and the WHO-China are themselves in effect primary sources. A degree of nuance is needed here because we are dealing with everything still being at the stage of hypothesis. It should be pointed out that both of these sources which are widely cited in this particular article have been widely criticized themselves. In order to understand these circumstances surrounding our sources one particularly needs to take note of the statements made by Dr. Ralph S. Baric, among many others.KristinaLu (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point now. The WHO-China source is actually a secondary source on this topic. It doesn't even deal with the possibility that the virus may have been passaged. For reference, here's the sentence of the WHO-China report:
 * "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."
 * Their source for this is Andersen et al source.
 * The language in this article at this time is:
 * "Based on the available genomic evidence, deliberate engineering of the virus has been ruled out by experts, with remaining investigations considering the possibility of a collected natural virus inadvertently infecting laboratory staff during the course of study."
 * I suggest it read as follows:
 * According to the joint WHO-China report, the likelihood of "deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release" has been ruled out based on genomic evidence. Other sources call for further investigation into the possibility that a virus may have infected laboratory staff during the course of study. ''Sentence about a collected natural virus inadvertently vs laboratory manipulation.
 * Looking forward to your input.KristinaLu (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm broadly in favor of this, it's pretty close to the original text of the section when added. I don't think the "other sources... further investigations" sentence is needed if we explain infection with a naturally collected virus. My one issue (and possibly that of ) is that we would need to have another section describing the possibility of serial passage and/or GoFR. The question is: do we have enough reliable sources to consider that a credible explanation, or is it also considered ruled out? We might be somewhat in between: call "deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release" ruled out conclusively, and use less definitive words for the unlikelihood or lack of evidence for serial passage/GoFR. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, I have a problem with the phrase "for release."
 * There is no difference, viral genomic evidence-wise, and Andersen et al-wise (as well as other experts' assessments) between engineering "for release" and engineering "for lab experiments."
 * We must also follow the consensus on the report's name as found elsewhere on this talk page: "WHO-convened report."
 * We also have several other experts and groups who have more precisely said "there is no evidence for" laboratory manipulation. I think that is the more accurate statement anyway. See these sources as well (secondary source reviewing Andersen and others) (expert opinions determining same). It isn't just the WHO report we're relying on. So it may be better to say:
 * Many experts have dismissed laboratory manipulation as a plausible origin, due to a lack of supporting evidence, and the overwhelming evidence in favor of a natural origin.[citations]
 * It's also not appropriate to use "thread-mode," as discussed in WP:HOWEVER. These sources are not disagreeing, so we should A) not depict them as if they are, and B)not directly juxtapose them even if they were disagreeing. One can have ruled out deliberate bioengineering, and still support further investigation. So I would oppose the wording "Other sources" and prefer something like "Multiple scientists and government officials have called for further investigation into the possibility of a natural virus released accidentally from a laboratory."
 * -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Although we are on a talkpage here, what actually goes in the article needs to follow WP:NOR. Because we are dealing with a singular source here, and because leaving out "for release" would clearly change the meaning of what was said in the report, some such wording needs to be included.KristinaLu (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many experts have dismissed laboratory manipulation as a plausible origin, due to a lack of supporting evidence, and the overwhelming evidence in favor of a natural origin.[citations]
 * It's also not appropriate to use "thread-mode," as discussed in WP:HOWEVER. These sources are not disagreeing, so we should A) not depict them as if they are, and B)not directly juxtapose them even if they were disagreeing. One can have ruled out deliberate bioengineering, and still support further investigation. So I would oppose the wording "Other sources" and prefer something like "Multiple scientists and government officials have called for further investigation into the possibility of a natural virus released accidentally from a laboratory."
 * -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Although we are on a talkpage here, what actually goes in the article needs to follow WP:NOR. Because we are dealing with a singular source here, and because leaving out "for release" would clearly change the meaning of what was said in the report, some such wording needs to be included.KristinaLu (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Although we are on a talkpage here, what actually goes in the article needs to follow WP:NOR. Because we are dealing with a singular source here, and because leaving out "for release" would clearly change the meaning of what was said in the report, some such wording needs to be included.KristinaLu (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what this is all about. Can the source in question be used on the page? Yes, it can, simply because it does not claim anything extraordinary or fringe. It say (Abstract) there is still no clear evidence of zoonotic transfer from a bat or intermediate species. Yes, sure, no one found the specific population of bats where this virus came from, patient zero, or an intermediate host (if any). It say The search for SARS-CoV-2′s origin should include an open and unbiased inquiry into a possible laboratory origin. Yes, sure, such opinion was expressed by many people in many publications. An inquiry is always good. What's the problem? "Serial passage"? Let me quote user Shibbolethink above: These are a few of the pieces of evidence among many that make virologists like myself conclude (with a fair amount of certainty, but not 100%) that neither engineering nor large-scale lab passaging of the virus likely occurred prior to the outbreak Here are some key words: "large-scale" and "likely". Translation: some artificial selection or "small-scale" passage could of course occur. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may misunderstand what I mean when I say "large-scale." The "small-scale" alternative would be indistinguishable from an accidental release of a natural virus. Any time we put a virus in cell culture, it mutates a bit. A very small number of "passaging generations" could conceivably remain undetected and indistinguishable from natural virus. To me, it is equivalent to a natural virus that's just being kept in the lab. It's just being kept in the lab in a different way (in a bat blood sample versus made clonal in cell culture but not adapted). But overall, to a virologist, that distinction doesn't matter. Both are equally likely, and neither are very likely. Both are more likely than GoFR (including serial passage). And both are less likely than a zoonotic event. It hasn't truly "adapted" in the case of small-scale passaging. And if it had been "cell culture adapted" then it would be detectable via cell culture adaptation mutations. And that's what has been ruled out. It's not a useful distinction (passaged but not adapted versus just bat blood in a freezer), and no RSes make that distinction.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention a few things that Shibbolethink left out.
 * 1) RNA viruses have the highest mutation rates known. More than DNA viruses, more than any known bacterium. Even if a SARS-like bat CoV was only intentionally passaged in vivo in a lab setting in live animal hosts, given that the WIV could easily have had as long as 6 years to manipulate the virus, surely some significant change could occur. The preceding is WP:SYN, but I would be happy to verify with sources. In lay terms, the suggestion that no significant change would occur in 6 years of serial passage through ferrets or cats is absurd.
 * 2) Several other mammal species have receptors that are so similar to human ACE2 that convention in scientific literature is to actually refer to them as ACE2 (See: Sarkar & Guha, "Infectivity, virulence, pathogenicity, host-pathogen interactions of SARS and SARS-CoV-2 in experimental animals: a systematic review"[]). We can see in fact that COVID has not only spread in various feline species but also widely in mink farms, with mink species being members of the family Mustelidae as are ferrets. Ferrets have notably been used in laboratories to study SARS, so one can easily imagine (WP:OR) that such a scenario would have existed at WIV, where serial passaging of SARS-like bat CoVs is known to have occurred.
 * 3) There is nothing to rule out some combination of in vivo and in vitro serial passage of a SARS-like bat CoV having occurred at WIV.KristinaLu (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * KristinaLu This is the challenge. The WHO does not appear to have considered 6 years of serial passage as a possibility in their lab scenario. That would have certainly been labeled in their figure with "adaptation and transmissibility increase". Hence the need to split any section so that we can describe the scenario the WHO evaluated (no serial passage), from any scenario which other sources evaluated (serial passage/GoFR). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for bringing things into focus. I definitely agree that this section be split up between the scenario the WHO described (being attributed that that source) on the one hand, and then other scenarios (intentional manipulation and escape of "natural" virus) on the other hand. (I think that goes along with what you're suggesting here?) As for the "adaptation and transmissibility increase" figure I will try to take a look in order to better respond when I have time. Thanks again!KristinaLu (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be essentially what I'm proposing. The current paragraph should stay as the WHO-scenario, and whether we add a second paragraph depends if there are sufficient reliable (and WP:SCHOLARSHIP) sources to describe another scenario. Last I checked, we're light on those. Any you can find would be great. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

When did I suggest "that no significant change would occur in 6 years of serial passage through ferrets or cats" ? Certainly it would. The issue is that 6 years of passage in an animal model would A) also significantly screw up the synonymous/non synonymous ratio of SNPs in the genome, B) adapt to that animal model, and C) /very likely/ be attenuated in humans as a result. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * What we have is a) something far less deadly than SARS (ie. potentially somewhat attenuated) and b) something that transmits readily between people (as we would see with something that was passaged through an animal host with similar ACE2 receptors). Your statements about SNPs are of course WP:OR. As far as I know that point would only be relevant for passage through cell culture. Of course, we don't have a wild-type genome for comparison anyway (since the WIV hasn't released the genomes of the SARS-like bat CoVs they were working with) so all of this goes beyond the scope of any relevant discussion here.KristinaLu (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The other problem with your message has to do with your description of the mutation rate. what matters is not just the raw mutagenic incidence of the polymerase, but also the population level fixation rate of the quasi-species "cloud" of viral genomes that is generated in the process of growing and passaging the virus. the polymerase is generating polymorphism in each single virion, but this doesn't tell us how often we will actually /see/ a mutation, or detect it. it tells us only how often such a mutation is generated. Many such "errors" will result in a non functional virus, so called Defective Interfering Particles (DIPs). So when we want to assess how often the viral genome /detectably/ changes, we must sample the population over time and examine the overall diversity of sequences. and what you find if you do that in RNA viruses is that the smaller the quasi species population size, the slower the fixation rate. Because smaller virus quasi-species populations are less stable, so it takes longer to have a mutation stick around enough to become a minority variant and "fix" and even longer for it to become the predominant sequence. it helps to think about the virus in these passaging experiments as a sort of quasi species cloud, not mutating in one direction, but outwards. in all directions.

I also provide a pretty good slot machine analogy in my Reddit post along these same lines.

It may also be useful to know, this is why genetic drift in lab settings is often negligible, and why passaging experiments are so costly and laborious. Yes, your virus is mutating, but it isn't "fixing" mutations. To overcome this, you need as many possible animals as you can get, so that your have as many viral generations as possible, and also as genetically diverse an animal population as possible, so that you're providing consistent selection pressure. All so that you can try and counteract this drift problem. It quickly becomes a feasibility issue, and you realize that viruses mutate much faster in nature because they have way way more animals and transmission events to work with. I'm definitely/quite/ sure that you could not take RaTG-13 and make it into SARS-CoV-2 in 6 years. It stretches beyond the bounds of credulity.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about RaTG-13? I am sure you are perfectly aware that WIV had (and may still have) quite a few SARS-like bat CoVs besides RaTG-13, and most of the data has not been released. Who knows what exactly Shi Zhengli was working on. She wouldn't have wanted to get scooped, so why would she have made anything available to anyone but maybe a collaborator?KristinaLu (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In science, the best way to avoid being "scooped" is to publish information, not hide it. Leaving aside that little logical flaw, the rest of this "reasoning" is even worse. Who knows what exactly Shi Zhengli was working on she was working on space aliens, it must be aliens!  You can't prove that she wasn't working on aliens!  Maybe SARS-COV-2 is really an alien virus!!!11!!!  Why does Wikipedia insist on censoring the alien virus hypothesis?  In all seriousness, do you actually do know what Shi was working on?  Do you have any evidence that WIV or Shi had access to bat coronaviruses more closely related to SARS-COV-2 than RaTG-13?  Because otherwise what are saying is no more or less verifiable than claiming that Shi was working on extraterrestrial viruses. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, I know. All of this is such an unimaginable stretch for you... The idea that this bat virus emerged in a place with no bats, that just so happened to be the location of China's only level IV lab that just so happened to have the worlds largest collection of viruses... from bats. Only an unreasonable crazy person would ever imagine that there might be some connection there.
 * So here we have established that you can't snark, which is OK. As for the WIV, it is well documented that they were working with SARS-like bat CoVs before the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2. I can provide (their own) peer-reviewed sources but I haven't yet because I was under the impression that nobody here was contesting that fact.KristinaLu (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that this bat virus emerged in a place with no bats, that just so happened to be the location of China's only level IV lab that just so happened to have the worlds largest collection of viruses... from bats. It's worth remembering that we don't actually know that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan. It was first noticed in Wuhan, and that was the location of one of the first big superspreading events, but we haven't identified the index case to say with certainty where it first infected humans. We do cover this topic in the article, by the way, explicitly pointing out the Wuhan/Yunnan distance. But the lab isn't the only explanation for that distance, of course. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should make my position clear, since bias and retaining NPOV is always crucial on Wikipedia. The above that you quoted was sarcastic of course. It was in response to another editor referencing aliens in a post directed at me. My point was that calling hypotheses conspiracy theories can be just as silly and counterproductive as actual conspiracy theories themselves.
 * It's worth remembering that we don't actually know that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan. Yes. That is indeed worth remembering. It is also worth remembering that transparency and open discussion are of primary importance to the scientific process (as I'm sure you realize).KristinaLu (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you are incorrect that In science, the best way to avoid being "scooped" is to publish information, not hide it. That's a crude and inaccurate generalization. That's true when a lab is only interested in publishing the data it found, but not necessarily if they hope to do something with said data. It depends on the PI, some are extremely secretive, some less so. Take the situation where a research group "gets lucky" (or is in an unusually good position) and ends up having sole access to some data. If said data happens to be particularly useful (and especially if it's low-hanging fruit) in the same types of experiments that the research group specializes in, it might be years before said data is available to the public (which includes other researchers).
 * In the future please ask for clarification on what I write before assuming that my posts are "illogical" or "lack reasoning". Thanks!KristinaLu (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

For sources on any of the above, you can check out the Reddit post on my user page, where I provide inline citations. I'm also happy to try and explain this with a whiteboard sometime, it's a very confusing part of virology.

For example, really confusing point: quasi-species are only really relevant to RNA viruses in the lab setting, due to the much much much smaller virus population size. Once you get enough hosts together, neutral mutations stop mattering as much, the error threshold increases, and genetic drift becomes more relevant. here's one of the field-defining articles on this, from back in 2002. I link to a lot more stuff about this topic in my Reddit post. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

all of the above is original research, but this seems a good time to remind everyone that WP:OR does not apply to talk space. I'm not arguing any of the above belongs in article space. not only because it's OR, like the rest of this thread (including most of the other comments in this section), but also because it's WP:UNDUE.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on MEDRS vs NEWSORG on the origin of SARS-CoV-2
I've begun a Centralized discussion on MEDRS vs NEWSORG on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Please visit, read, and comment there. Forich (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the phrase "conspiracy theories" from the lede
I move that this term at the very least be removed from the first paragraph. As a precedent we can look to Earth for example. There is no mention of Flat earth. The primary importance of this article is to document legitimate inquiry. "Conspiracy theory" is not a major factor in the process of legitimate inquiry and hence should be left out of the lede. Any talk of "conspiracy theory" could potentially be saved for a controversy section and link to other existing COVID-19 pages.KristinaLu (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The conspiracy theories are a major component of the origin investigations. Your precedent is more suitable for the COVID-19 and COVID-19 Pandemic articles, where we don't mention the conspiracy theories in the lede. I think the more apt comparison is History of geodesy. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that your comparison is more apt. However, History of geodesy doesn't mention conspiracy theories in the lede. If we were contemporary to Pythagoras, we would not be referring to the flat disc of Homer as a "conspiracy theory". Again, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is an open question and needs to be treated as such here.KristinaLu (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:V is the pertinent PAG here. We follow what other people say, not what we think is the "truth." And lots of other people talk about conspiracy theories related to the origins of the virus. So that's why we mention it. It is analogous as to why "flat earth" is mentioned in the lead of History of geodesy. The specific phrase "conspiracy theory" is not as important as the content itself. Both this article and that article discuss dissenting views, and frame those views in how experts discuss them, proportional to how often they are discussed that way. That's WP:DUE for you. Is it always right? No. But it tends to be right more often than it is wrong. That's why Wiki policy is built this way.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:V nor WP:DUE point to the term "conspiracy theories" being used in the very short first paragraph of this article. Maybe it could be included later in the lede, but it should not be juxtaposed in such a way to lead the reader towards WP:OR ie. that any hypothesis besides non-laboratory zoonotic origin constitutes a "conspiracy theory". This may be your personal opinion, but as per WP:NPOV and WP:VOICE we report what sources say not our opinions about them, and we should avoid stating opinions as facts.KristinaLu (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. Linking to COVID-19 misinformation in the lead is essential, and the current wording seems fine. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 00:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to keep the link to COVID-19 misinformation somewhere in the without using the phrase "conspiracy theories" in the first paragraph? We have so many highly notable experts now on record (Ralph S. Baric, David Baltimore, Robert R. Redfield, David Relman etc.) that in order to be in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE care should be taken to not write off all hypotheses besides "natural zoonotic origin" as "conspiracy theories".KristinaLu (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If only there were a stand-alone lab leak article, you could mention Several other explanations, including a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a variety of conspiracy theories, have been proposed about the origins of the virus. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 03:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How about this:
 * "Most scientists say that the virus is likely of zoonotic origin in a natural setting, from bats or another mammal, although complete investigations into other explanations have been encouraged by experts. The origin of the virus has also been the topic of many conspiracy theories."
 * One sentence for science, a separate sentence for conspiracy theories.KristinaLu (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. The way the lede is written clearly relegates the lab leak theory to conspiracy status. Pkeets (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my main point, I hope it was clear for others.KristinaLu (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. The so-called conspiracy theory is a valuation without empirical evidence. Only if we would have a proof here, which verifies this surely, one can carry out a valuation strong scientifically. It is only purely subjective evaluation - nothing more.--Empiricus (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First choice would be to remove the phrase "conspiracy theories". Without clicking through to the references, it's not even clear what it is referring to. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So COVID has not been the subject of conspiracy theories about its origins? Do you happen to live on planet Denial? Here's a small serving of reliable sources, all across the spectrum (recent and not so recent, from national organisations, high quality and lesser quality academic journals, to mainstream newspapers et al.), which indicate that in this case, your statements couldn't be further divorced from what is verifiable in reliable sources, and that there has indeed been many "conspiracy theories" and "speculation" about this: . That and all the other sources cited in the misinformation article and at the NOLABLEAK page. In short, as some kind of people like to say, facts and logic prove that your position is, unambiguously, incorrect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * These sources are outdated, except for the new LANCET letter - there is nothing there about conspiracy theory.. We referred to the laboratory theory alone and this, even in science (see Lancet Letter) is no longer a conspiracy theory. Your "old interpretations" are now a fringing position, which is perhaps still relevant in China - but no longer in the Western world, neither in science, the WHO, nor in states nor in the public.--Empiricus (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * These sources aren't outdated. They demonstrate, beyond a doubt, that at some point in time, the origins of the virus were [still are] subject to conspiracy theories. Are you denying the statement "the origins of COVID have been the subject of conspiracy theories"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A statement can be true but still WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Cnet article
The discussion of Covid 19 origins on wikipedia has made into news: https://www.cnet.com/features/inside-wikipedias-endless-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory Just a comment: we should have an article named "Wikipedia discussion war over the coronavirus lab leak theory" Sgnpkd (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. We don't have an article on the basis of one RS, Wikipedia is not particularly significant on this issue, CNET is only reliable for tech-related articles, and we've (for content reasons) decided against various (otherwise notable) spinoff articles on this topic. Nice that Wikipedia has press coverage, but we don't need an article every time Wikipedia makes it into the news. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with here. It's very rare that wiki-drama warrants a mention in an article, let alone an article dedicated to it. Moreover, this is outside of CNET's area of reliability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The "relevant" article already exists at Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic - we can add a sentence or two about this there, if you deem it is warranted to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can call CNET a reliable source for this topic (their area of expertise appears to be cellphone reviews and the Top 10 Things to Stream On Amazon Prime Tonight). If our back-channel forum drama is actually noteworthy, other publications will pick up on it. It's happened before on other topics, but I don't think we're there yet. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ITT: people with absolutely no sense of humour High Tinker (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentences are already there. ;-) Ain92 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk page consensus on high-quality "Lab Leak" sources
According to the [|consensus template] for this page, [|-> this is where to find the following discussion:] In prior discussions of several manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. I couldn't find any cohesive consensus so I'm moving the discussion here. I can think of several sources that are conspicuously missing from this article. And most importantly, Even if carefully included as primary sources, these articles have been referenced in one way or another across many forms of media in order to justify them being included in the article. With mainstream experts including Ralph S. Baric, David Baltimore, 	Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson Robert R. Redfield and David Relman all calling for more investigations things are to the point where this article at the least needs to acknowledge that such sources exist. I of course expect everything to be in line with WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE etc. as far as how claims are introduced to the article. By WP:FRINGE, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. There are plenty of secondary sources now. These are only hypotheses being discussed, not truth claims. KristinaLu (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Segreto & Deigin "The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin: SARS-COV-2 chimeric structure and furin cleavage site might be the result of genetic manipulation" Bioessays
 * Segreto et al "Should we discount the laboratory origin of COVID-19?" Env Chem Lett
 * Sirotkin K, Sirotkin D. "Might SARS-CoV-2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?: A potential explanation for much of the novel coronavirus' distinctive genome" Bioessays
 * Bloom et al "Investigate the origins of COVID-19" Science
 * Cherrypicking sources that agree with what you wish to be included, while ignoring the dozens of other, much better sources, that give credence to not including - this does not help build an encyclopedia. Not to mention that the three sources you give first are no more than editorials published in whichever journal would take them. Nobody is arguing that some people don't believe in the lab leak. However, the scientific consensus, as demonstrated by a plethora of sources already in the article here, is that it is extremely unlikely. So you're right - we must consider DUE and FRINGE - and adding any credence to the lab leak hypothesis based on the sources you provide is not in line with DUE or FRINGE. These are not secondary sources anyways - they're all "essays" or "opinion" pieces - which are only valid on Wikipedia for the opinions of the authors - which are not DUE weight to include here. Yes, you're correct that the sources are "conspicuously missing" - because it is not due weight to repeat every single person's opinion on the matter. Being referenced by others does not make it any less of an opinion/editorial piece - and does not suddenly mean we can ignore that fact when deciding to include or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not "cherry-picking sources I agree with" so that's not an issue. This article is unbalanced based on the current opinions of experts. That's the issue.
 * You are incorrect. There is no scientific consensus that it is "extremely unlikely". Just because one is the less likely of two scenarios doesn't make it somehow non-existent. That's not how hypothesis works, and it's not Wikipedia's job to "pick a winner". The entire article is based on natural zoonotic origin (for which there is currently zero evidence). Based on WP:DUE at this point a lab escape scenario deserves a balanced (not equal) mention.
 * There are many secondary sources now. The fact that we now have Ralph S. Baric, David Baltimore, Robert R. Redfield and David Relman should be more than enough to shoot down any immature notion that there is some "consensus" and scientific questions are akin to winning prom king, whoever is most popular goes in Wikipedia. Surely there has to be some degree of nuance allowed when dealing with open questions.KristinaLu (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not our job to "pick a winner", but when the vast majority of scientists consider something the winner, then DUE and WEIGHT (which you referenced, so I'll assume you read) apply. Individual people expressing their opinions is not a secondary source. You keep talking about "many secondary sources", but all you've presented are a bunch of primary/opinion sources. And no, 4 scientists you can name does not mean there still isn't a consensus among the hundreds of thousands of other scientists in the world. That's exactly what I mean by "cherry picking" - you are saying "well these four people say one thing, so we should ignore everyone else". Four peoples' opinion is rarely due for expressing on the same level as the opinion of hundreds of thousands of others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I am curious. If you did not select those four sources because they agree with you, why did you select them? What was the criterion for including Segreto et al, but not including other papers missing from the article? Such as:
 * Morens et al, "The origin of COVID-19 and why it matters"
 * Zhang et al: "Strategies to trace back the origin of COVID-19"
 * Alanagreh et al: "The human coronavirus disease COVID-19: its origin, characteristics, and insights into potential drugs and its mechanisms"
 * Those are the first three hits in a Google Scholar search for "origin covid virus".
 * And your logic concerning the "extremely unlikely" thing is also weird. How does "extremely unlikely" turn into "somehow non-existent"? I am accustomed to this type of logic from creationists who say mutations cannot lead to evolution because beneficial mutations are rare - they turn the "rare" into "nonexistent" the same way you do.
 * Regarding the "mainstream experts": let's just wait until they have done studies that confirm their opinions, shall we? Wikipedia traditionally only clucks when the egg has been laid, not before. Or, in other words, WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * We mention the Bloom et al letter to the editor in the reactions to the WHO report section. We also mention Ralph Baric's thoughts in that section as an expert, independent of the bloom et al letter of which he is a co-author. Relman is cited twice, once as senior author on the Bloom et al letter and also in this transcluded SARS-COV-2 section. We also cite the bloom letter in one of those SARS-COV-2 sections as well, under reservoir and origin. Both the Relman opinion piece and the Bloom et al letter have been through editorial review of a topic relevant journal but not peer-review, and are accordingly cited for statements of uncontroversial fact and also for expert opinion in due weight. David Baltimore's opinion is the most describable as WP:FRINGE among those listed (based on a lack of inclusion in scientific peer-reviewed publications or even in editorial-reviewed opinion pieces). I would put it closest to Deigin and Segretto who have not been published in any relevant topic-area journals or mentioned or cited in expert peer-reviewed review articles. They are the least deserving of weight. I have a great respect for some of Dr. Baltimore's achievements (and abhor his misconduct ), but he is far from the first or the only current Nobel prize winner to be on the fringe. At least he walked back his statements a little bit . But doesn't make them any more WP:DUE. Personally I don't think we need any more inclusion of these sources than we already have.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 03:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of the template is to stop sinking time with these discussions repeatedly. While it doesn't stop people making them, so long as the template is honest and neutral, it's an effective resource for editors to just point to the relevant numbered issue. I couldn't find every discussion where this was discussed, but even from the linked ones it's clear every time this has been brought up editors disagreed with calling these RS. The WP:SOURCE policy says the credentials of the author affect the reliability of the work. Given that (IIRC) Segreto is a botanist, and Deigin is an entrepreneur, I'm surprised this was even debated in the first place -- neither has credentials in virology. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , without disagreeing with your main point, I would like to point out that the claim that Segreto is a botanist is entirely false, and is sourced to an editor who made other similarly false claims about scientists who have made comments supporting the lab leak hypothesis. Segreto is in fact a biotechnologist, using the same technology virologists do to create fungal mutants, so she is more than qualified to be cited for her findings - which are very significant. I will also point out that Deigin’s father is a reputed scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, so though he has had a good knowledge of the subject from an early age, I agree that papers authored by him alone may not qualify for citation in accords to WP:SOURCE, but he is credited with a number of findings in numerous secondary sources - which are also very significant. I will make a list of all the DRASTIC findings that I think are worthy of inclusion under the section Independent Investigations of our article. Both Segreto and Deigin’s findings have been widely reported in secondary sources, so let’s not get hung up in the red herring that is these primary sources. CutePeach (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are DRASTIC getting peer review? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * DRASTIC members are credited with things like discovering the Mojian miners' PHD theses, which was - in large- what started the debate on the lab leak possibility, and Fauci recently called on China to release their medical records . If debris of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 washed up on a beach in Australia, would we need to wait for peer reviewed studies, or would reliable sources be enough to cover the story? CutePeach (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes, several DRASTIC members have gotten peer review in several journals, in case you were unaware. CutePeach (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The PhD thesis would be the actual finding, and Fauci isn't a member of DRASTIC. Flight 370 comparisons would be odd, since it seems unlikely they'd be directly contradicting existing peer-reviewed research to see a similar application of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
 * Out of curiosity, did that WIV live bats thing that DRASTIC "discovered" ever get independently verified? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes, several DRASTIC members have gotten peer review in several journals, in case you were unaware. Why didn't you lead with this? When you go off on tangents about Fauci and Flight 370 instead of answering the original question, it comes across as if it were POV-pushing. I don't want to presume you are, but you make it very hard not to come to that conclusion with troubling frequency. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * which of their publications were published? Can we add a section to DRASTIC, titled "Publications" or some such, with a list of them? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am surprised you hadn’t heard about DRASTIC members' peer reviewed papers, as they’ve been discussed ad ad nauseam in earlier discussions, and they’ve been covered in numerous secondary sources. The Mojian Miners PHD thesis was found on a Chinese gov website, so it's easily verifiable and it has been acknowledged by Shi Zhengli, as she dismissed it numerous times and claimed instead that the miners died of a fungus. There are also papers supporting the lab leak hypothesis from non DRASTIC members, which are covered by secondary sources, which I will add tomorrow.
 * I will add the papers tomorrow. They are mainly from Segreto, Design, Rahalkar, Bahulikar, and one other anonymous member who published under his own name. The Sorotkins’ paper was the first, but Sorotkin junior was expelled, so the father probably departed too. CutePeach (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I recognize those author names, but it's not like they put "Member of DRASTIC Team" on their papers (nor do we have a list of members on our article to cross-reference). Probably because they don't want to be associated with the trolls in the group. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, there should be no need to credit DRASTIC for individual members' papers and their findings. Same for the "Paris Group", which has published three open letters which can be credited to them, but Decroly's paper should be credited to him and his co-authors. Sorry I didn’t manage to compile the list today. Will do tomorrow. CutePeach (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bloom et al is already cited, as I'm sure a second look at the article will confirm for you. The previous consensus here has mostly been that BioEssays and Environmental Chemistry Letters weren't reliable for the topic. Primarily since they seem to be lacking peer review and/or were published outside of journals directly related to biology/virology (implying their WP:FRINGE/ALT status). I'm probably less opposed than some others on including them, however if we do include them we need to be very clear that these are contrarian, non-mainstream, less-reliable views. I suggest that if you have a strong disagreement on inclusion, that you seek outside input from someplace like WP:RS/N and link that discussion here. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Lancet Commission task force
This section need to be corrected, Daszak no longer leads/is a member of this task force. It should be mentioned that he was recused due to conflicts of interest. High Tinker (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Got an RS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Archive links to list of Lancet commissioners, Jan 7th 2021 Peter Daszak present. June 28th 2021 Peter Daszak listed as recused. July 8th 2021 Peter Daszak removed.


 * Also, reliable source The Times(archive link), quoting "technical work will be conducted by independent experts who were not themselves directly involved in US-China research activities that are under scrutiny". High Tinker (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - added with Times source. Thanks.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Covid origins: Australia’s role in the feedback loop promoting the Wuhan lab leak theory
Interesting new piece in The Guardian on Australian journalist Sharri Markson's large role in amplifying the lab leak claims, and their amplification in the American right-wing media. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

WHO report reception - in the Lead
We currently have:

I have the following observations:


 * 1) "Scientists found the conclusions...." Perhaps, we can change it to "In general, scientists found the conclusions ...".  A simple read of the reviews of the report quickly reveals that the conclusions are, for the reviewers, the least helpful part of the document.
 * 2) "... but noted that more work would be needed".  This is an accurate summary of the positive reviews of the WHO report, but it lefts out what the negative reviews said.  We have at least 30 scientists talking about "serious structural gaps" and the BMJ editor in chief raising concerns publicly.  In my opinion, "serious structural gaps" is very different from "more work would be needed"
 * 3) "In the US, the EU, and other countries" Why is this geographical qualification relevant?  This is almost the whole western world. So, the critics are non-Chinese, is that the point?
 * 4) "Some criticised..." is vague, we can have "Some scientists and journalists", "Some experts and media" or something along those lines.  Normally, we'd name scientists  first, followed by "They were echoed by the media", but in this case it is important to have them on the same level, as the WHO report just did a poor job of communicating to the general public what was found and how much information continues unknown, in my opinion. The WSJ dedicated a piece of investigative journalism to call them out on their defficiencies, so it is not a minor thing.
 * 5) About the criticism itself: I wonder if "lack of transparency and data access" being the most accurate depiction? Please read the WSJ investigation, or the Le Figaro letter to see that the wording is too soft. Again, "Stymied from the start" is very different to "lack of transparency and data access". The first depiction speaks of intent on China's part, while the latter is more of an involuntary error. Forich (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree on points 1, 2 and 3. But disagree on points 4 and 5. I think 4 is too complex/clunky. And I do not believe 5 brings us closer to NPOV, and instead over-weights criticism in comparison to the weighting of views found in RSes. Perhaps a better wording would be: "In general, scientists found the conclusions of the WHO report to be helpful, but some noted the study's lack of transparency and data access created serious barriers. WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom said he was ready to deploy additional missions for further investigation." Thoughts? -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

thanks, seems a good agreement to settle on 1, 2 and 3. Forich (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * point number 1 ("in general"), is fine, but the rest of these proposed changes give undue weight to criticisms of the report, which overall remains highly consistent with the scientific consensus on the spillover of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population in SE Asia. For every criticism and caveat Forich proposes, far more text could be added supporting the WHO report: this would be necessary to maintain a NPOV but would create a bloated introduction. We shouldn't change the lead to begin giving undue credence to the lab leak idea that remains fantastical for most people who study infectious diseases. -Darouet (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , thanks for commenting. I am pretty sure none of my 4 points mentions the lab leak hypothesis, though.  Point 1, we all agree. Point 2, mentions the Le Figaro open letter standpoint that the report has major flaws, instead of minor ones.  But the Le Figaro scientist are not known advocates of the lab leak theory, they only converge on some points.  Points 3 is a comment on letting the criticism be stated to come internationally, instead of attaching it to specific regions of the world. This is not linked in any way to the lab leak hypothesis.  Point 4, argues for a clearer mention of China's arguably antagonistic attitutes to being investigated. It has nothing to do with the lab leak hypothesis, except that it is a point of convergence with the opinions of their advocates (Drastic, Ebright, Metzl, etc).  Forich (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I do agree with Darouet on keeping the lead as short as possible. I have searched for fair depictions of the reactions of the report and found this one, maybe we can borrow some of its content or tone to reach a middleground between the three of us:  Forich (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Closure from the RFC on MEDRS vs RS
An uninvolved editor closed this RFC which I think is relevant to edit this entry.

After considering the best point of that discussion, the closing editor came up with this rule:

MEDRS level

 * How a disease spreads
 * What changes a disease likelihood to spread
 * A disease mutation information
 * The details concerning a naturally-ocurring medicine

Examples: How Ibuprofen is synthesized, What a disease does to a living organism, any information on the contagiousness of a disease

RS level

 * Who created something
 * Where something was created
 * If something was discovered by accident (like the stimulating properties of Viagra)
 * If something is found as the result of targeted research
 * Who first discovered a naturally ocurring medicine or where

Example: A medicine was discovered by Stewart Adams and John Nicholson in the 1960s while working at Boots UK Limited

This rule gives a little less ambiguity to sort what information requires MEDRS or RS, let's adhere to it as it is the best we have. Forich (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Agreed. I was pleasantly surprised with this closure personally, it's basically how I felt about MEDRS versus RS. Of course, we cannot forget the importance of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which for example, tells us that history and virology publications in peer reviewed journals are more important than newspaper sources in determining the state of the world in Wikipedia's eyes. I think that was also something that broadly got lost in that discussion, we don't really need to use MEDRS, because SCHOLARSHIP tells us what we need to know for the purposes of this article's extremely frequent disputes.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, Wikipedia:Scholarship does overlap with WP:MEDRS and is free of many of its objected points. Forich (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Calls to investigate a laboratory leak reached a "fever pitch," fueling antipathy towards people of Asian ancestry
An editor continues to re-insert this bizarre text "In the United States, calls to investigate a laboratory leak reached a fever pitch, fueling antipathy towards people of Asian ancestry". Just to understand better, if a person thinks an inquiry into the possibility the virus leaked (accidentally) from a lab is warranted, that somehow "fuels antipathy" toward Asian people? This sounds like a non-sequitur and only seems to be sourced to two sources. Should this text be removed? Yodabyte (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This text should be reworded to better distinguish that there's a "aggressive rhetoric" which has been linked to harassment of those perceived to be of Asian descent and of scientists, per the sources. Not the calls for investigations per-se, just those going the extra step of "blame[ing] COVID on China" or making threats against those who happen to dispute the lab hypothesis. I made an attempt to make this more clear, and I think clarity is the path forward rather than removal. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Who would have thought that blaming a virus on China and "scientists playing God" would lead to bullying of Asian people and scientists? Insert ironic "surprised" meme here. That aside, seems to have done a fine job clearing up the confusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The way to better understanding is to apply the Principle of Charity, not to attack a strawman. The language does not state or imply that a person such as you or I thinking an inquiry is warranted fuels antipathy. What it plainly says is that the "fever pitch" of the calls fueled it. Personally I think it was more a matter of political exploitation of antipathy being used to push the lab-leak hypothesis in order to shift blame for the consequences of the virus to China. Unfortunately, that led to a knee-jerk reaction to the hypothesis among scientists, journalists, and others that is still in play and is reflected in this article, which quite misrepresents the current scientific view with its very misleading lede; that view is not captured in one report or another precisely because there's no consensus. From the perspective of scientific objectivity, neither a lab leak nor zoonotic origin has sufficient evidence to support a scientific consensus. That lack of evidence is due in part to China destroying or hiding evidence for its own political reasons. That's unfortunate, but it also doesn't tell us what the answer is. -- Jibal (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , What exactly do you think is the scientific consensus? Personally, I would say it is: "zoonotic/natural origin is more likely, but lab leak is worth investigating."
 * My reasons for this are WP:OR and mainly have to do with being a virologist and having lots of virologist friends who think this way, but... It also happens to be the scientific view depicted in most RSes, as shown in WP:NOLABLEAK and this sources section on the newly created COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis page.
 * Most scientists still think the zoonotic/natural origin is more likely, given the lack of hard scientific evidence supporting the lab leak hypothesis. But to these same people, it's plausible enough that it's worth investigating.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I told you -- there is no scientific consensus. Saying that some hypothesis is more likely because there isn't hard evidence for some other hypothesis is not a scientific consensus. Maybe read up on what a scientific consensus is. Also read up on Baysian analysis ... a probability claim based on missing evidence is not reliable; as I've said, China destroyed and hid evidence, so no wonder there's no hard evidence for the lab leak--because the relevant evidence one way or the other is missing. Anyway, this isn't a blog, I don't like to repeat myself, and I'm not here to chitchat, especially with people who pay no attention to what I write: "there's no consensus". Over and out. -- Jibal (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One more thing: WP:NOLABLEAK is a one-sided argument. A balanced argument is possible--I've seen them. But when people are entrenched in the view that there are no valid counterarguments, then they keep confirming that view with references that support it, never seeking any that don't. -- Jibal (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would encourage you to search this talk page's archives for our many many discussions on what "counts" as a consensus. We have talked about it here so many times, each time coming to a rough consensus on what the scientific consensus is, often based on WP:MEDRS criteria. Specifically check out #4 on the list of things we have wikipedia agreement on at the top of this page.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why the heck would I want to waste my time doing that? I know very well what a scientific consensus is, and that an assertion that some hypothesis is more likely because there isn't hard evidence for some other hypothesis is not one. I don't care what consensus has been reached here on what a consensus is because I am not currently calling for changes to the page... not until and unless I can gather RS that support claims I would like it to make. You asked me a question that I had already answered. As I noted, I don't like talking with people who do that. The conversation here has veered far off the purpose of this page. Please leave me alone. -- Jibal (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would encourage you to search this talk page's archives for our many many discussions on what "counts" as a consensus. We have talked about it here so many times, each time coming to a rough consensus on what the scientific consensus is, often based on WP:MEDRS criteria. Specifically check out #4 on the list of things we have wikipedia agreement on at the top of this page.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why the heck would I want to waste my time doing that? I know very well what a scientific consensus is, and that an assertion that some hypothesis is more likely because there isn't hard evidence for some other hypothesis is not one. I don't care what consensus has been reached here on what a consensus is because I am not currently calling for changes to the page... not until and unless I can gather RS that support claims I would like it to make. You asked me a question that I had already answered. As I noted, I don't like talking with people who do that. The conversation here has veered far off the purpose of this page. Please leave me alone. -- Jibal (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What We Know About the Origins of COVID-19
From a June 26, 2021 article in WSJ (a reliable source):

''A WHO-led inquiry into the origins of the virus was stymied from the start. An investigation found China resisted international pressure for an investigation it saw as an attempt to assign blame, delayed the probe for months, secured veto rights over participants and insisted its scope encompass other countries as well. The WHO-led team that traveled to China in early 2021 to investigate the origins of the virus struggled to get a clear picture of what research China was conducting beforehand, faced constraints during its monthlong visit and had little power to conduct thorough, impartial research without the blessing of China’s government. In their final report, the investigators said insufficient evidence meant they couldn’t yet resolve when, where and how the virus began spreading.

'''China withheld data on potential early cases and delayed sharing information on animals sold at a market where the first cluster was found. Chinese authorities refused to provide WHO investigators with raw data on confirmed and potential early Covid-19 cases that could help determine how and when the coronavirus first began to spread in China.''' Chinese researchers also directed a U.S. government archive to delete gene sequences of early Covid-19 cases, removing an important clue.

If the virus truly originated in the wild, why would China hide information and delete data and be so secretive? The way this current article is written makes it seem like an accidental leak from WIV is still some outlandish claim, even though many scientists and reliable sources disagree. This article needs more balance and due weight given to the most likely scenario for the origin of the virus which is an inadvertant lab leak. Yodabyte (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "If the virus truly originated in the wild, why would China hide information and delete data and be so secretive?" - Authoritarian regimes tend to be secretive by nature; see the paragraphs at the bottom here (starting with "Think of it this way. What country would welcome investigators [...]"); and also the comparison with the now infamous WMDs in Iraq here. The WSJ piece is already cited. The rest appears to be WP:OR, and is not supported by the vast majority of reliable sources, even newspapers (most of which will correctly tell you that the mainstream scientific view is that the virus likely came from nature). This article already gives more than enough weight to the "inadvertant lab leak", considering how that hypothesis is received in the peer-reviewed, WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources on which we should be basing this (see WP:NOLABLEAK for a sampling). FWIW, you should read the paragraph at the bottom of the Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 section... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Authoritarian regimes tend to be secretive by nature" - don't you think an authoritarian regime that has imprisoned millions of ethnic minorities in forced labor camps and concentration camps would try to deceive the world from finding out how the virus originated? The Guardian article you referenced says this "team members were sceptical of the lab leak theory after their visit, on the basis of what they were allowed to see – although that does not rule other material having been hidden. And China, as the WHO’s head, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, made clear, did not provide all the information. Common sense says if China has data/evidence that the virus originated outside of the lab they would share that with WHO team members (in other words it's logical to conclude there very likely was a lab leak origin).


 * Here is another Guardian article I re-read recently about how the Chinese communist party controls the narrative and censors any debate on the origins of the virus: China is cracking down on publication of academic research about the origins of the novel coronavirus, in what is likely to be part of a wider attempt to control the narrative surrounding the pandemic. Yodabyte (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Common sense says if China has data/evidence that the virus originated outside of the lab they would share that with WHO team members (in other words it's logical to conclude there very likely was a lab leak origin). Not only does WP:NOCOMMON and WP:CK suggest we should be careful here, you already stated that they're an authoritarian regime which "would try to deceive the world from finding out how the virus originated". Whatever the origin may be, you've made the argument that it's also common sense that they'd hide the natural origins of the virus. Even before asking whether it's common sense that they'd be less inclined to be open in the face of accusations of impropriety. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling/Bakkster Man I'm making the opposite argument - the most likely reason China is not being transparent with neutral, scientific, apolitical entities like the WHO is because they know there was an accidental leak from the WIV and sharing that with the world would obviously be very damaging. The argument that because they are an authoritarian regime they don't share any info doesn't hold up in a situation where a pandemic has caused millions of deaths across the globe. This is an extremely serious issue, if we cannot determine how the virus originated (whether in the wild or in a lab) we could experience another pandemic in the next few years. Again, why is China hiding information, deleting data, and overall not being transparent in a situation as dangerous as this, what could possibly be the innocent explanation? Yodabyte (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the thing with "common sense" (aka, WP:OR), it's not so universal. You think it's more likely one way, I think the other. Without a reliable source, we can't say one way or the other in the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bakkster Man - you completely ignored the points about China's behavior, and also the relevant questions, and simply brought up WP:OR, which is unrelated to this specific discussion and the issues I'm bringing up about the strong likelihood of a lab leak (accidental) origin. Yodabyte (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ignored, I simply disagree that they 'most likely' fit a lab leak. There's other explanations, you've just chosen to believe it's indicative of one of them. And we can't change the article because you feel that way. We have to cite it to some other source, and a reliable one at that. Find that source, then we can talk. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "what could possibly be the innocent explanation" -- who said the explanation is innocent? By rote, China hides information that could possibly be damaging or embarrassing; they don't do so only for information that they have formally proven is bad for them. That China has destroyed and hidden information makes it harder to answer the question, but it tells us nothing about what the answer is. In any case, none of this is remotely relevant here. WP:FORUM I agree with your original statement that "The way this current article is written makes it seem like an accidental leak from WIV is still some outlandish claim, even though many scientists and reliable sources disagree", but arguing likelihood based on China's behavior is a totally different thing. The task is to round up those reliable sources, and that takes work. I know they exist though, as I have seen detailed discussions on this matter among neutral scientists and science journalists. -- Jibal (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's all WP:OR. We trust scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, not the "common sense" of Wikipedia editors. China being authoritarian is not evidence for the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, but China covering up and deleting data and not sharing information with WHO team members is. Yodabyte (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. As outlined above, they will refuse to share information no matter what, because they are an authoritarian regime. Kind of like the US military being secretive about UFOs does not mean UFOs are alien spacecraft, it just means military types being typical military types. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but there is a big difference between potential secret advanced military vehicles and a virus which has spread across the globe and killed millions. We should know more about both but keeping information on one is not identical to hiding data and information about the origin of the virus, one is much more egregious than the other. Yodabyte (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What matters is what published peer reviewed secondary sources have said, not what we feel in our hearts or are “suspicious of” about China. We also have most of these criticisms in one form or another already in the article. Not much to add here...— Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am just telling you that your logic is invalid. The UFO thing was just an example to illustrate why, and pointing out the differences between the actual case and the example is pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Are peer reviewed articles secondary sources? Pkeets (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if they are review articles, which is what we use in this article. if you find some primary research articles in the mix, let me know, and I will try and find some review articles which corroborate the details. If I can't find any secondary RSes, we could remove the citation and challenge the content etc. This is the process...-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 14:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)