Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 12

The second paragraph of the lead currently reads as follows:

The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic.^[1][2] The theory gained popularity in America through promotion by conservative figures including president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party in the spring of 2020,^[3] fomenting tensions between the US and China.^[4] Many in American liberal media and political circles subsequently dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.^[5][6]

QUESTION: Should the following sentence be added to the lead...

Some scientists initially supported the lab leak theory in early 2020, but later changed their stance.^[7][8]

... so that it reads ...

The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic.^[1][2] Some scientists initially supported the lab leak theory in early 2020, but later changed their stance.^[7][8] The theory gained popularity in America through promotion by conservative figures including president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party in the spring of 2020,^[3] fomenting tensions between the US and China.^[4] Many in American liberal media and political circles subsequently dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.^[5][6]

Le Marteau (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(boldfacing added only to highlight this proposed change)

This edit request to COVID-19 lab leak theory has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"However, another explanation for this is a tendency to build virology labs in proximity to outbreak areas.[60]"

This statement makes no sense are you proposing that Wuhan built a Bat Virus lab in preparation for an outbreak of Bat Virus in 2019? It is difficult to imagine what the author is intending. 216.228.112.22 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

SARS‑CoV‑2 is far from the first coronavirus to be discovered. The source linked in our article goes into more detail: Virology labs tend to specialize in the viruses around them, says Vincent Munster, a virologist at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories...The WIV specializes in coronaviruses because many have been found in and around China. Munster names other labs that focus on endemic viral diseases... “Nine out of ten times, when there’s a new outbreak, you’ll find a lab that will be working on these kinds of viruses nearby,” says Munster. Researchers note that a coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan isn’t surprising, because it’s a city of 11 million people in a broader region where coronaviruses have been found. VQuakr (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the word "potential", to indicate it's where zoonotic crossover is most likely to happen, rather than necessarily having had already happened. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 lab leak theory has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change: "The CGG codon makes up 3% of the arginine codons in the SARS-CoV-1 genome, and it makes up 5% of the arginine codons in the SARS-CoV-2 genome."

to: "The CGG codon makes up 5% of the arginine codons in the SARS-CoV-1 genome, and it makes up 3% of the arginine codons in the SARS-CoV-2 genome." 148.76.109.230 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a a quote from the source which supports this change? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

From the Snopes source article: "The idea presented by Wade is flawed, and Baltimore has since walked back his quote. The CGG arginine codon sequence appears in 3% of the full SARS-CoV-2’s genome and 5% of SARS-CoV-1’s genome." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.36.3 (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done This is also consistent with Frutos et al, paraphrased in the next sentence. The sources provided also include this Nature article, which repeats the same info. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There are quite a few pages devoted to various claims, conspiracy theories, and misinformation regarding COVID-19. I hope this page is the best of those for me to mention this. If not, I apologize.

Anyway, there are new claims that a scientific paper says that COVID-19 has a genetic match with a genetic sequence that was patented by Moderna in 2016, and that the odds of this being a coincidence is one in three trillion. Naturally occurring genetic sequences cannot be patented. So these claims are saying there is a near 100% certain chance that COVID-19 was genetically engineered.

Again, I apologize if I am posting this in the wrong place.

Also, I have no idea how reliable these sources are. But I do know that there are other people here who are far better than myself at making this determination.

Anyway, here are some links. I'll leave it up to others here to decide whether or not these sources are reliable. And again, I apologize if I posted this in the wrong place.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808/full

https://weather.com/en-IN/india/coronavirus/news/2022-02-26-new-study-finds-covid-19-dna-linked-to-moderna-patent-filed-in

https://www.biospace.com/article/tiny-covid-19-gene-sequence-raises-question-but-is-it-only-a-quirky-observation-/

https://notthebee.com/article/scientists-have-reportedly-discovered-dna-fragments-in-covid-19-that-were-patented-by-moderna-3-years-before-the-pandemic

https://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE;b8af9ac0.2202

54mmkds (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The odds are waaay better than 4^-19 (roughly 3^-12) that a 19-nucleotide sequence would appear in both a 33,000 BP virus and a 3,000 BP patent. See birthday problem. But this was found from a search of a database, so the odds of finding a hit were even higher. Plus base pairs aren't random; they are organized into codons and not all amino acid sequences are valid. So then it's not surprising that this doesn't appear to have been reported in WP:RS. VQuakr (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the Biospace link gives two direct quotes regarding this.

• “We’re talking about a very, very, very small piece made up of 19 nucleotides. So it doesn’t mean very much to be frank, if you do these types of searches you can always find matches. Sometimes these things happen fortuitously, sometimes it’s the result of convergent evolution (when organisms evolve independently to have similar traits to adapt to their environment). It’s a quirky observation but I wouldn’t call it a smoking gun because it’s too small. It doesn’t get us any further with the debate about whether COVID was engineered.”
• “There can only be a certain number of [genetic combinations within] furin cleavage sites. They function like a lock and key in the cell, and the two only fit together in a limited number of combinations. So it’s an interesting coincidence but this is surely entirely coincidental.”

Also, looking at the math provided, am I wrong that they appear to have calculated the probability of this specific 19 nucleotide sequence appearing at random in both databases? Given that we're talking about the Furin Cleavage Site that has gotten all this attention, rather than a random sequence without a specific structural limitation, this is very much not any old random sequence. It's more accurate to say that the same sequence encoding the FCS (and a surrounding portion) was identified as a modified version of the human genome FCS for the purposes of developing an anti-cancer medication. Which is an interesting coincidence, but doesn't have the same "one in 3 trillion" punch. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Frontiers in X, as you can see in WP:CITEWATCH, is a potentially predatory journal that publishes almost anything it gets hold of. Frontiers in Virology does not even appear on the Scopus list, and its impact factor is not given anywhere. The lead author, Balamurali Ambati, is an ophthalmologist, and why he would publish research that is totally not within his domain of expertise may only lead to answers that suggest this article has no place here. That's the right place to ask the question (you are actually welcome to do so), but there are all hallmarks of shoddy research, so I'd dismiss it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think none of those sources are usable. —PaleoNeonate – 00:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it's not particularly notable, basically WP:FRINGE. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow! I really appreciate all of your comments. Thanks to what all of you said, it is very clear to me that it would be highly inappropriate to add any of that content to the article. Thank you so very much for your useful and helpful feedback. 54mmkds (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence under Chilling effects currently reads:

According to Paul Thacker (writing for the British Medical Journal), some scientists and reporters said that "objective consideration of COVID-19's origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a "conspiracy theory".[1]

This is wrong for three reasons. First because internal quotations should be marked with apostrophes, not actual quotation marks, secondly, because in the original source the period was inside the quotation marks around "conspiracy theory," and thirdly because there is no close quote for the larger quote. It should be changed to:

According to Paul Thacker (writing for the British Medical Journal), some scientists and reporters said that "objective consideration of COVID-19's origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a 'conspiracy theory.'"[1]

There are really just a few minor grammar changes, but I am unable to edit the article myself.JMM12345 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

fixed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, thank you for your input on this section. I think it needs more work, as LAIs aren't the only route a virus could have leaked from a lab in Wuhan. I think we should mention this also in the lead. LondonIP (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have sources describing the plausibility of other routes? This section is not about the various ways covid could have leaked, it's about prior incidents, which are unanimously believed to be LAIs. Given that these events are not always mentioned in articles about COVID lab leak theories (it was actually quite difficult for me to find the phrase LAI or mentions of HIV, SARS-1, Ebola, etc. in articles about the lab leak theory)... I do not think this section would be DUE for the lead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not about plausibility, it's about what sources say, and scientists like Richard Ebright have always called it a "research" or "laboratory" related accident. The Paris Group published a letter with a table of all the possible routes but I didn't manage to find the link when I searched for it just now. I did find this. LondonIP (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If secondary sources have not said "LAIs aren't the only route a virus could have leaked from a lab in Wuhan" then we cannot include such a notion here. To do so would be WP:OR based on primary sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Jane Qiu: Meet the scientist at the center of the covid lab leak controversy, Technology Review, February 9, 2022 --ZemanZorg (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.city-journal.org/why-science-writers-do-not-report-objectively-on-covids-origins 2600:1700:8660:E180:C429:C5ED:A43E:7A74 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

See also: City Journal

City Journal is published by the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, that covers a wide range of topics, from policing strategy, education reform, and social policy to urban architecture, family culture, and contemporary theories emanating from law schools, charitable foundations, and public health organizations. Color me surprised. I would rate this as about as reliable as an Op-Ed from the Cato Institute or the American Enterprise Institute. Which is to say, duplicative of the content we already have from Wade. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That a publisher is 'conservative' does not automatically remove it from consideration, see WP:BIASED where it says, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Whether there is a place for his cited opinion is another question. Le Marteau (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

We already have his cited opinion. Why does he get more space? As to whether or not he is qualified as a science writer, one need only look at his several other controversies including Race and Intelligence. He does not have a history of accurately capturing or portraying the scientific consensus on topics for which he is not an expert. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Le Marteau: It's not being suggested that this view be disregarded. However, opinions published by partisan think-tanks are generally considered less reliable, for the obvious reasons. And, more to the point, Nicholas Wade's view is already represented here. The question is, where would we place this less-reliable info in the article, and should this particular piece by Wade supersede the article's other mentions? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it is a question of weight, not that the publisher is conservative. Le Marteau (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that the publisher is conservative, it's that it's a partisan think-tank. The same reliability concerns would apply to a left-leaning organization. If there's a difference, it's only in which topics they choose to weigh in on, and whether or not they're in disagreement with mainstream scientific consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Partisan sources can be used with attribution if it has enough weight. That is my only point, per WP:BIASED. Le Marteau (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As Shibbolethink already mentioned, we already make note of this author's views, published in other venues. His point was that, because this source doesn't appear to be more reliable than what we already include, it's unclear what we would add to the article (or what we should replace with this content, to keep his individual view from receiving WP:UNDUE weight just because he got published lots of places). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Partisan sources must also be used with attention to not give WP:UNDUE weight to minority views. Unless this source is being used specifically to support a significant factor of the opinions of the American right (for which we have plenty of existing sources, no need for repetition) which has not so far been reported, it probably has no place in an encyclopedic article (which ought to both be a summary and present matters in a way coherent with how they are discussed in relevant topic-related academic sources), given the already identified issues with those opinions being a fair distance out in left field (maybe I should write "right field" instead?) from those expressed by mainstream scientists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

To be sure, I'm listing it in the lab leak theory sources anyway. Not that I endorse the op-ed's usage since Wade is already in the article, but I think it's never bad to have more choice to select the source that presents his point of view. Btw, check up on the sources in the templates - quite a few have appeared recently. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, and I think it was absolutely correct to put it in the "Journalist Op-Ed" section. That's why I'm so skeptical it deserves inclusion in the article. WP:RSOPINION, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:WEIGHT teach us to treat such matters with caution and great care. And to ignore all that to shove more non-expert opinions into this article and to increase the prominence of the current opinions... just seems misguided.... I will take a look at the source templates and help make sure everything's in its proper place! But I tend to agree, more sources to choose from is rarely a bad thing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for any of this, why not just say waiting for publication of the wet market preprints? An obvious problem for the article as right now, they're probably due for inclusion and at least as important as much of the opinion and speculation that has already made it in. How could you possibly have criticism of the reporting of the preprints without first mentioning them? Or is there content somewhere i'm not seeing? fiveby(zero) 16:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The effort to close the debate in favor of the natural-origin hypothesis continues today. In February, The New York Times gave front-page treatment to a set of preprints—written by Michael Worobey at the University of Arizona, Kristian Andersen at Scripps Research Institute, and 16 coauthors, including Garry—claiming that a new analysis of public data from the Huanan market in Wuhan provided “dispositive evidence” that the virus first leapt to humans from animals sold there. But a number of top scientists, Bloom among them, questioned that assertion, saying the preprints, while worthy, relied on incomplete data and found no infected animal.

“I don’t think they offer proof. They provide evidence that more strongly supports the link to the wild animal market than to the WIV, and that’s the way I would have phrased it,” says W. Ian Lipkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who favors the natural-origin theory. Advertisement

“Some scientists seem almost hell-bent on naming the Huanan market as the site of the origin of the pandemic; and some members of the media seem more than happy to embrace these conclusions without careful examination,” said Stanford microbiologist David Relman. “This issue is far too important to be decided in the public domain by unreviewed studies, incomplete and unconfirmed data, and unsubstantiated proclamations.”

Vanity Fair 2600:8804:6600:45:2CA2:4D0B:E598:F57C (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added the article to the list for consideration (see collapsible box at the top of the page). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki I think if we add this vanity fair we should probably ALSO add the NYT articles which are referenced thereto. But I would add that we probably should avoid covering this in extreme depth given that these are WP:PREPRINTS and thus not very reliable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the two New York Times stories referenced in the article was already in the template at the moment of adding the Vanity Fair investigation (btw, the Time story (2022-03-29) precedes the Vanity Fair stuff, 2022-03-31). Strange I've missed the other one. I think that since the NYT says explicitly it's discussing pre-prints, editors should be aware that this isn't exactly the kind of source we're looking for but might be usable in limited circumstances.

Short story: yes, we should include it, though I think Nature and Science covered it better, if without catchy graphics and maps (the Wuhan lab is, if OSM doesn't lie, about 30 km from the market, so it's a shame that map wasn't shown, but well, at least it's searchable). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the article states: Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.

The problem with this statement is that scientists are currently divided on whether alteration to the SARS-CoV-2 genome, or (more precisely) its immediate progenitor's genome, can be determined without access to laboratory records 1 2 3 4 5.

Baric Graham 2020 (PMID: 32392464) cites Andersen et al (PMID: 32284615) in light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2. But as Ralph Baric later told to PresaDiretta, "You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace" [1]. After dampening his "smoking gun" comment about the FCS, David Baltimore told to Caltech "You can't distinguish between the two origins from just looking at the sequence" [2]. And more significantly, after a (unapproved) grant request by EHA about coronavirus GoF experiments was leaked in Sep 2021; Jack Nunberg told to The Intercept "Whether that particular study did or didn’t [lead to the pandemic], it certainly could have" [3] and Alexander Kekulé told to German television "My unease about the possibility that it could have been a laboratory accident has increased" [4]. Simon Wain Hobson wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about it: "What we do not know - and badly need to know - is whether this proposal was submitted elsewhere, financed and performed." [5].

A neutral statement would reflect the views of these scientists as expressed in these more recent sources, while tempering confidence about facts that scientists can't know without access to key documents at the Wuhan laboratory. The full quote from Baric is "You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace. The answers you are looking for, however, can only be found in the archives of the Wuhan laboratory".

80.107.62.75 (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this has been a problem for a while, and the main reason the POV tag remains on the Gain of function research page. I would support a rewrite of the sentence using better sources and providing some much needed WP:BALANCE on the issue. LondonIP (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We do not treat blatant minority views as always worthy of inclusion. This is what BALANCE tells us as well.. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

After the DARPA proposal leak, a number of reputed scientists commented extensively on this scenario, so it's an open question, not a minority view. There are quotes from Simon Wain-Hobson and Alexander Kukel are very relevant, and the comments from David Baltimore in Caltech are relevant too. Regardless of all that, the use of the Graham Baric paper to call this speculation is a clear case of OR. The paper introduces Andersen et al as a response to speculation, and doesn't call it that itself, qualifying it as "possible". LondonIP (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Quotes and comments are opinion, and unless they have been subsequently followed by more serious endeavours which were published in scientific journals, they do not hold nearly the same weight. "Speculation" is well-backed up in sources (Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory.; The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses.) and rather a mild way to refer to it (I've also seen As a conclusion, there is no evidence to support the Mojiang mine origin of SARS-CoV-2 and any of the laboratory leak theories. ... These narratives are not evidence-based scientific conclusions. ... In a time of geopolitical conflicts characterized by hidden agendas, false information and manipulations, it is essential to rely only on scientific and evidence-based conclusions and to avoid opinion-based narratives. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The tone of the statement is obviously POV. None of the citations are scientific published papers, and there are numerous other papers that argue strongly (and with good evidence) that it is a lab leak. It is obviously controversial, and it is not the job of Wikipedia to take sides. It needs to be replaced with a more balanced statement. Tuntable (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously you can't distinguish a crap scientific paper from actual ones. Take a look at WP:NOLABLEAK (from where all of the above is quoted). The "both sides" argument is as utter bollocks here as it would be anywhere else. WP:NPOV does not ever mean that we need to present "both sides" equally. We present them based on what the high-quality sources are saying, and high-quality sources are saying the lab leak is at best "unsupported speculation". You don't like that? Not Wikipedia's problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

there are numerous other papers that argue strongly (and with good evidence) that it is a lab leak -- Could you provide a single secondary review paper published in a reputable topic-relevant journal and peer reviewed by topic experts which supports this claim? I cannot think of a single one. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"a number of reputed scientists commented extensively on this scenario, so it's an open question, not a minority view" - By this logic, whether or not bigfoot exists is also an open question. Whether or not aliens have visited earth. Etc. etc. On wikipedia, it is not in line with the WP:PAGs to determine scientific consensus or prevailing scientific view (and the nature of its majority vs minority opinions) via news reports and quotations. We also don't assess what is "an open question" via these methods. WP:MEDASSESS and WP:RS/AC tell us how to assess such things, and it is not via interpretation or summation of a bunch of individual quotations from individual people. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If there are so many well published papers then it should be easy to find one that actually states

"Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence."

The citations for the statement in question are clearly not substantial papers.

I also object to the tone of your comments. Insulting other editors by saying that they are incompetent is completely against Wikipedia etiquette. It reflects much more upon your own attitude than upon those making constructive comments. Tuntable (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You haven't even bothered to check WP:NOLABLEAK, which was clearly linked, have you? Nor go more in depth and look at the sources in their entirety and see what else they have written? Not going to do your job for you. Currently, there are some fictitious and pseudoscientific claims as well as conspiracy theories associated with the Covid‐19 pandemic. Some people have alleged that SARS‐CoV‐2 is of laboratory origin and the result of deliberate genetic manipulation. According to these conspiracy theories, a novel virus is a human‐made biological weapon, not the result of natural evolution and selection. (Rev Med Virol., 2021 Feb 14) is rather unambiguously clear and there is no need for us to take any half-measures regarding this. Stop wasting people's time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOLABLEAK is not Wikipolicy, but merely the opinion of some editors. It carries no weight whatsoever.

What we are discussing here is a specific sentence which requires a specific citation, from a reputable source, and that is missing. Therefor the sentence should be removed. Tuntable (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOLABLEAK also contains an extensive bibliography. If you wish to ignore it, and ignore the sources which are already in the article (despite me bothering to quote them, right here), that is entirely your own problem. I'm done wasting my time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tuntable Hi, where do I say another editor is "incompetent" ? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• IP is correct in saying that the paper of a scientist who said we don't know if the virus was engineered should not be cited to say the very opposite. LondonIP is correct in saying the paper only references Andersen et al and doesn't make the claim itself, so our article misinterpretation the author's view and his paper, in wikivoice. In a related discussion on Gain of Function Research, the original author of MEDRS says the question of whether a lab conducting gain-of-function research it not a scientific or biomedical claim but a bog standard human "Well, were you?" question . Yes I read that entire discussion. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  This would be covered by "speculation." (i.e. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence) As you say, we don't know if the virus was engineered. So, by your reasoning, it is speculative. Hence why the only place where that Ralph Baric paper is cited in this sentence is after the word "speculation." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between speculation and hypothesizing, and Fatbatsat makes a similar point in this related discussion, as does Vosne in this related discussion. Editors oppose the statement for one reason (POV), and the citation of Graham et al on the "speculation" epithet for another (misrepresentation of the authors' view expressed in a Presadiretta interview and their Cell paper). Calling the engineered scenario "speculation" is the POV of one group of scientists (Holmes et al) and we certainly shouldn't be attributing it as that to Graham Baric 2020. It is a blatant misrepresentation of a source that editors have protested for over a year. If we cannot agree on this, we should post a RFC on a noticeboard to group all of these discussions. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"Editors oppose the statement for one reason (POV)" - please do not continue to speak for the opinions of other editors without specific quotations, per the talk page guidelines. Holmes et al is a peer-reviewed secondary review article published in a well-regarded topic-relevant journal, and thus is the best available source for depicting the view of the scientific community about this question. We do not have higher or equivalent quality sources which contradict Holmes on this. The Baric paper also has the quote which even includes the word "speculation". If you believe it fails verification, you should attempt to gather consensus on that view. We have discussed this many times before (stretching all the way back to March of last year ), and the informal consensus was in favor of including this word with this sourcing. We should not escalate every dispute to an RFC, as this is a fundamental component of tendentious editing and indeed, I would caution you against this. Given the substantial amount of discussions we have had on this, and the accompanying sourcing, I would view this as a substantial waste of editor time and effort. On the other hand, if you do escalate this into an RFC, we could get a firm formal consensus on it, and add it to the consensus banner at the top of this page! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and refrain from constantly lecturing editors you disagree with on policies and guidelines. Baric and Graham do not state that alteration of the genome is "speculation", but quote Andersen et al using that epithet, as LondonIP says above. Our article misrepresents Baric's point of view, and the position of his paper with Graham, so it is WP:OR. Holmes et al is indeed a high quality source, but MEDRS is not the relevant sourcing criteria for determining a scientific consensus on this subject, as the original author of WP:MEDRS said long ago. Scientists are divided on this question and a review article giving one POV does not make it a scientific consensus. An RFC will be necessary if we cannot agree on this. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If MEDRS papers were "not appropriate sourcing for determining a scientific consensus", random scientists getting quoted in newspapers would be even less so. And you're correct that we shouldn't call the engineering scenarios "speculation": most of those scientific papers (reviewed by their peers, and not by newspapers editors) clearly dismiss that as having no evidence and various other terms, including "speculation" but also "conspiracy theory", "rumour", "opinion-based narratives" which are "in a time of geopolitical conflicts characterized by hidden agendas, false information and manipulations"; so on so forth (all cited and quoted here - see, you don't even have to do the hard work of looking for them). If you want to focus on content, you should stop wasting people's time with your clearly tendentious arguments and own up and start looking for sources (like those that have been presented to you, multiple times now) instead of sealioning and ignoring them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Most everyone using the word "conspiracy" has been proven to be conflicted. (eg Daszak) Newspapers using the word are most usually quoting these same people. I believe the only scenario that has no supporting evidence based in fact is "Bioweapon". 2600:1700:8660:E180:8569:1D3F:A66F:E266 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe the only scenario that has no supporting evidence based in fact is "Bioweapon". Please support your statements with references to reliable sources. Vague pronouncements do not keep us specific or grounded, and thus do not help the discussion approach consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Deliberate_release 2600:1700:8660:E180:E56B:2EFB:3380:FBFC (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

the version proposing the virus may have escaped accidentally is more plausible. Plausibility is not synonymous with supporting evidence. It is very plausible that I will go outside right now and my neighbor will be walking across the way and say hello and wave to me. It has never happened before, but it is certainly plausible. I have no evidence to suggest that this will happen. But it remains plausible. Please support your statements with reliable sources, or take your discussion to a platform where such baseless theorizing and invective is permitted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

An RFC will be necessary if we cannot agree on this - Do you mean you will start an RFC if everyone here does not agree with your position, or are you open to reconsidering if provided any evidence? Or if you fail to find evidence which supports your position, as you have failed to do thus far?
refrain from constantly lecturing editors you disagree with on policies and guidelines - The only things that should be discussed on this talk page are 1) policies and guidelines (and their application to this article), 2) article content, and 3) source quality, utility, and verifiability. per WP:TALK#TOPIC. It seems, per that guideline, I am on topic.
Holmes et al is indeed a high quality source, but MEDRS is not the relevant sourcing criteria for determining a scientific consensus on this subject - You're right, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:PARITY are applicable. And as a result, much of the same considerations apply.
a review article giving one POV does not make it a scientific consensus - Review articles, especially when viewed in aggregate, depict the consensus of the scientific community, since they are peer-reviewed and editorially reviewed and themselves discuss the relevant literature in a secondary perspective. WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:RS/AC, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:PARITY tell us this is the type of source we should use here. And we have several which tell us that "speculation" is an appropriate term to use.
Scientists are divided on this question - Is what you describe here your personal opinion? What high quality peer reviewed secondary source are you using to determine that scientists are divided on this issue? When viewed in aggregate, our WP:BESTSOURCES (as shown in WP:NOLABLEAK) tell us that there is not much disagreement among scientists, and only a minority consider the lab leak theory a likely scenario. Only a very small minority consider there to be any supporting evidence for the theory. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

In a world where Francis Collins is attacking scientists and Kristian Andersen is proposing to delete papers from pre-print servers, it seems very difficult to use WP:BESTSOURCES in a cut and dry fashion. 2600:1700:8660:E180:8569:1D3F:A66F:E266 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. if our sources are wrong, we are wrong as well. This is the essence of "verifiability, not truth" and it is the guideline that prevents us from inserting our POVs and deciding when to trust which sources.
It appears you have disagreement with those policies and guidelines, and you should probably take that to the talk page of those wikipedia-space articles. This is not the place to debate what the policy should be, it is the place to discuss how to apply those policies as they currently exist. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Let the gaslight burn bright! 2600:1700:8660:E180:E56B:2EFB:3380:FBFC (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The effort to close the debate in favor of the natural-origin hypothesis continues today. In February, The New York Times gave front-page treatment to a set of preprints—written by Michael Worobey at the University of Arizona, Kristian Andersen at Scripps Research Institute, and 16 coauthors, including Garry—claiming that a new analysis of public data from the Huanan market in Wuhan provided “dispositive evidence” that the virus first leapt to humans from animals sold there. But a number of top scientists, Bloom among them, questioned that assertion, saying the preprints, while worthy, relied on incomplete data and found no infected animal.

“I don’t think they offer proof. They provide evidence that more strongly supports the link to the wild animal market than to the WIV, and that’s the way I would have phrased it,” says W. Ian Lipkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who favors the natural-origin theory. Advertisement

“Some scientists seem almost hell-bent on naming the Huanan market as the site of the origin of the pandemic; and some members of the media seem more than happy to embrace these conclusions without careful examination,” said Stanford microbiologist David Relman. “This issue is far too important to be decided in the public domain by unreviewed studies, incomplete and unconfirmed data, and unsubstantiated proclamations.”

Vanity Fair 2600:8804:6600:45:2CA2:4D0B:E598:F57C (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added the article to the list for consideration (see collapsible box at the top of the page). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki I think if we add this vanity fair we should probably ALSO add the NYT articles which are referenced thereto. But I would add that we probably should avoid covering this in extreme depth given that these are WP:PREPRINTS and thus not very reliable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the two New York Times stories referenced in the article was already in the template at the moment of adding the Vanity Fair investigation (btw, the Time story (2022-03-29) precedes the Vanity Fair stuff, 2022-03-31). Strange I've missed the other one. I think that since the NYT says explicitly it's discussing pre-prints, editors should be aware that this isn't exactly the kind of source we're looking for but might be usable in limited circumstances.

Short story: yes, we should include it, though I think Nature and Science covered it better, if without catchy graphics and maps (the Wuhan lab is, if OSM doesn't lie, about 30 km from the market, so it's a shame that map wasn't shown, but well, at least it's searchable). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

These two publication cited in the PNAS article are relevant to our context:

T. P. Peacock et al., The furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is required for transmission in ferrets. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 899–909 (2021).

H. Winstone et al., The polybasic cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 spike modulates viral sensitivity to type I interferon and IFITM2. J. Virol. 95, e02422-20 (2021).

"The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV-2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV-1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS-1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. [Note that these experiments in ref. 30 were done in the context of a safe “pseudotyped” virus and thus posed no danger of producing or releasing a novel pathogen.] These simple experiments show that the introduction of the 12 nucleotides that constitute the FCS insertion in SARS-CoV-2 would not be difficult to achieve in a lab." Source https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202769119 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empiricus-sextus (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That would be PMID:33907312 and PMID:33563656. Both primary sources and so unreliable for WP:BMI. Why keep bringing unreliable sources to the article? Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you removed all the published academic papers about Covid and its origin you would have nothing left. And I am sure you would not allow a reference to Alina Chan's book Viral as it is not an academic publication.

This is not BMI at all. It is not about symptoms or treatments but rather about genetic engineering technology. All of biology is not BMI! Tuntable (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not that Alina Chan's book is not an academic publication so much as it is that Alina Chan's book is not a reliable source that is respected by any other reliable or noteworthy publications for the purpose of academic research. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Genetics and bioengineering are part of the thing we call biomedicine. See WP:BMI for further help. Alexbrn (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)