Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

I am shocked that somebody without clear arguments can redirect a very important aspect of the origin of the virus into the misinformation file. First it is a hypothese 2 many clear and also famous people from the scince community like Dr. Richard Elbright, Dr. Quay, Dr. Marc Lipsitch, Dr Rahul and Dr. Mona Bahulikar, Alina Chan, Dr. Yuri Deigin, Rossana Secreto, Professor Joseph Tritto and more. What kind of professional credit somebody has to proof for such greater decisions? There are rumors about the lack of knockledge of the "writers" of Wikipedia, and this looks like a kind of scandal. Best regard Wolfgnag Bergmann Paying supporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf15Berg (talk • contribs) — Wolf15Berg (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hello . Scientists have had a strong consensus that there was no lab leak for awhile, but the lay press has latched onto this lab leak story and keeps pushing it. Wikipedia has policies in place to help make sure our articles reflect scientific consensus. Our MEDRS policy tells us that the way to judge scientific consensus is to get our sources from review articles in biomedical journals, statements from medical authorities such as the CDC and the WHO, and medical textbooks. Review articles have called the lab leak a conspiracy for awhile, and a few days ago the WHO released a statement affirming this. At this point, it seems really clear that this is 100% a conspiracy theory. You may disagree, because the sources that you trust say differently. But the sources that Wikipedia trusts are very clear on this subject, especially with the WHO's statement this week. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The talk page history of various articles contain repeated clear and valid arguments by med-savvy and fringe-savvy editors who are also familiar with the encyclopedia's policies. Notably, Wikipedia is not for undue WP:PROMOTION of random opinions or for presenting WP:FALSEBALANCE arguments instead of a summary of the consensus of reliable sources.  It's not a journal or newspaper (WP:NOT) but an encyclopedia.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It is abnormal that very important and reliable information regarding the origin of the SARS-COV-2 has been redirected to "misinformation"; classifying this as misinformation is incorrect; it is not misinformation but reliable information about a possible lab leak. the world has to know the type of biological experiments that are done nowadays, and in particular that were done in Wuhan with viruses, and the risks they imply. the severity of theses risks is very important, (as the consequences of the pandemic shows), and as such, these risks need to be investigated and treated. Please reput the information, and don't class it as misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertsia (talk • contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — Ertsia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Most you write Paleo is wrong: "Scientists have had a strong consensus" The origin of the virus is still unknown. The zoonotic Hypothesis has no evidence, but is seen as most likely. 12 month after research for intermediate hosts was not successful. But 12 month research of by the community of science found a lot of evidences, some of it is written in the deleted article. Next insubstantial accuse "Review articles have called the lab leak a conspiracy". Lab-leaks happens year by year. They happen in the US, in Europe, in Asia and in China. To investigate into a lab-leak is not conspiracy in itself. You must bring arguments for the possible conspiracy. I did not write the article but I don't see any conspiracy. None of these scientist who take in regard a possible lab-leak says that scientist for China developed the pathogen to threat the western world or the US. But there arguments against the Gain-of-function experiments, or at least a strict control. I feel very sad about what I find in the back-end of Wikipedia. People hide as anonym have the sole authority to crash knowledge of scientist only to flag the as conspiracy. Please tell who controls the controller? Wolf15Berg (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)wolf15berg
 * The Cigarette Smoking Man?Face-smile.svg — Paleo Neonate  – 05:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)