Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by High Tinker (talk | contribs) at 12:53, 17 July 2023 (→Fringe Science category: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.




Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about 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. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 8 January 2025 by Synpath (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

New article on public.substack.com

According to multiple U.S. government officials interviewed as part of a lengthy investigation by Public and Racket, the first people infected by the virus, “patients zero,” included Ben Hu, a researcher who led the WIV’s “gain-of-function” research on SARS-like coronaviruses, which increases the infectiousness of viruses.[5]

Although they are a substack, Public says they have a team of eight, and their corrections policy appears to be robust. I am not familiar with them and don't know how strong the evidence is to support what they say here: We correct our stories immediately upon discovering errors, whether of fact or opinion, both here on this website and on Twitter. The founders of Public have written at length about our own errors and why we made them. Our Corrections Policy thus involves not simply correcting the error but also seeking to understand and avoid the reasons for the error in the first place and sharing those lessons with our readers.[6] Adoring nanny (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but rather than having a lengthy debate about the reliability of Public, we could just wait for other sources to collaborate or disparage the claim. If Ben Hu were indeed patient zero, that would be an extremely important piece of evidence, so I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot more coverage about this topic, particularly with US COVID origin investigation documents about to be declassified. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Hu were indeed patient zero, that would be an extremely important piece of evidence, so I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot more coverage about this topic
Yes, that is the heart of WP:ECREE. We need extraordinarily high quality sourcing for something like this, not the musings of a substack newsletter. And neither, for that matter, the musings of the FBI or the DoE or the DNI. We rely on expert assessments published in scholarly journal article reviews per WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Especially if we want to overturn longstanding consensus on such highly contentious topics. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So your take, if I understand it correctly, is that academic newsletters (journals) almost entirely consisting of the musings of those from the amateur ranks (academics) somehow trump the work of professionals? Did I hear you right? - 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:7991:215A:FD55:90DA (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Substacks are not generally considered RSes. What history of corrections do they have, policy aside? What reputation do they have? How wide is their circulation? Are they professional journalists or hobbyists? What experts do they consult? This appears to be conspiracy-laden gobbledygook from my reading, not based on anything but anonymous "sources".
As far as I can tell, this is just repackaging of that old BS about three WIV researchers getting colds in the fall of 2019. Which we discuss and debunk already in the article.
OH wow, this is from Matt Taibbi? You mean that guy who fabricated an entire chapter of his book in 2000? That guy who went from tabloid to tabloid and was dropped by several publishers for putting satire and exaggeration in non-fiction books and articles? Not exactly a "reputation for fact-checking" that we expect in RSes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't know how strong the evidence is [should have added -- or isn't] to support their stated corrections policy. You may have noticed I did not make a WP:BOLD edit based on the story. My uncertainty about reliability is the reason. Can you provide links for the above statements about Taibbi? That said, Michael Shellenberger appears to be the main author. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Matt Taibbi article goes into detail with sources. Basically in 2010 someone figured out there was a chapter in his coauthored 2000 book about Russian expats that was made up out of whole cloth and the publisher dropped him and disavowed.[7][8][9] Apparently a lot of this was because he was addicted to heroin at the time.[10] There's also the time he basically threatened a Vanity Fair interviewer and followed him after a bad interview.[11] Then with Twitter files lots of ppl pointed out blatant falsehoods and he said that was just the cost of doing lots of journalism.[12][13] Musk dropped him and he left Twitter altogether.[14][15] I think there are also instances of him repeatedly leaving NY tabloids after 1-2 years as well, after publishing questionable stories.[16][17][18] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that does not inspire confidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 journalists: MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER, MATT TAIBBI, AND ALEX GUTENTAG + 3 “Patients zero” scientists researching SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology: Ben Hu, Ping Yu and Yan Zhu — Lab Leak 100%? Covid ‘Patients Zero’ Were WUHAN LAB Docs Doing GAIN-OF-FUNCTION: Shellenberger, The Hill − Please, try to curb your ad hominem attacks!--93.211.215.12 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hill.TV is not the same as The Hill (newspaper), any more than Fox & Friends is the same as Fox Broadcasting Company's various local TV affiliates (they are not). Different editorial standards, fact-checking, etc. I don't think we have a consensus on wikipedia that Hill.TV is reliable. Criticizing a journalist's reputation for fact-checking is part of evaluating the source, not an ad hominem fallacy.
See also: WP:RS:

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

  • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Additionally, this Rising piece appears to be simply reprinting/hosting the Public story. Not independently evaluating it, and thus would run into exactly the issue with WP:BNS: For significant claims about significant news events, wait for two or three independent reliable sources to source the material. If one source says that "the other reports...", the sources are not independent.
So right now, it appears we have 0 RSes covering this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So glad this Wikipedian (of the website that considers the New York Times and Washington Post to be reliable sources despite them being wrong 80% of the time) can tell us all what a reliable source is. Hilarious. - 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:7991:215A:FD55:90DA (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink well the new York times is now confirming their reporting. 2601:1C0:717E:B870:ED11:A66B:DF5:325C (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well the new York times is now confirming their reporting
Are they? This is an opinion piece, and therefore not reliable.
This, which is a reliable piece, does not confirm it at all. In fact, it says People briefed on the material say there is no smoking gun. and Intelligence agencies view the information about [the three sick workers] neutrally, arguing that they do not buttress the case for the lab leak or for natural transmission, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unnamed officials briefed on the intelligence are nearly as bad as our three State Department investigators. Have no idea about The Messenger, but Goldstein is the only one i see commenting so far with unsurprisingly: “The amount of information we have is completely insufficient...[19] It seems they might have asked him about the loss of smell and lung scan assertions floating around. fiveby(zero) 17:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Applicable questions:
  • If this is true, why don't the Director of National Intelligence or National Intelligence Council find it convincing? Surely they would have access to such "classified" materials as the governing person and body over the intelligence community. Why didn't they include that in their previous summaries? What "new evidence" would have arisen?
  • If this is true, why did one of these supposed "anonymous sources in the government" say they were "100% convinced" it was a lab leak? How can anyone be 100% sure of something without contemporary lab testing of these supposed "patient zeros"?
  • Mechanistically, materially, what actual evidence could a US government official have that Ben Hu was patient zero? It would have to be contemporary documents, testing, etc. Which we have no evidence or reporting actually exists.
  • etc. etc. There are a lot of unanswered questions here and that's exactly why it's clearly a WP:ECREE situation, and doesn't raise anywhere near the level of inclusion yet.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The climax of this summer: "addicted to heroin at the time" is not ad hominem... seriously.--93.211.215.12 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with all of the above arguments, I do agree that at this point, we don't have sufficient sourcing for this. A person who becomes convinced on any side of any debate runs a risk of falling victim to confirmation bias. In this case, I think accepting the public substack as WP:RS would be confirmation bias by me. Public's reporting may or may not be borne out at some later time, but that's immaterial. The crux of it is that Shibbolethink is correct that we don't have sufficient indicia of reliability here. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with characterization as click bait. The prose does not inspire confidence Public and Racket are the first publications to reveal the names of the three sick WIV workers and place them directly in the lab that collected and experimented with SARS-like viruses poised for human emergence. The journalists placed the 3 people directly in the lab? Sloppy writing indicates unreliable source. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link under "at length" goes to Amazon for a book by one of the journalists. They even use their "Policy" and "Ethics" section to sell their own books. Wow. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should certainly start working towards adding content on this, there's also more reliable sources reporting this as well. Wish I had more time to do it myself, but I have other responsibilities too. Theheezy (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author of that substack, Michael Shellenberger, is not a reliable source.[20] He in the past, often promotes shoddy theories like climate change denialism and UFOs with poor half truth reasoning. And yet seems many are thinking this is all a shut and close case because of a report from a journalist who denies climate change and think UFOs is real. Or at least strongly desire to believe it. But I would like to weight in and advise to avoid the FALLACY OF CERTAINTY. Nothing is even proven outright in his report. It's all circumstantial and on "maybes". Nothing conclusive. So thinking that it is all proven conclusively, is just fooling yourself. And if lab origin was now proven without a doubt, majority of scientists and most mainstream media will be stating that as a fact. But they don't because it's not proven beyond doubt. And an in-depth analysis of the virus, instead convince many scientists to still believe it's of natural origin because of the overwhelming evidence to support that. [21][22] And US gov knows that Intel and still rank a recent Lab origin report as being "low confidence". Which doesn't show they even believe such Intel strongly themselves and instead do not oppose the overwhelming scientific consensus that's it's NOT some engineered bioweapon.49.180.44.81 (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that over time, the picture will become clearer. Theheezy (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not acceptable proof of lab origin. To go hold to hope that lab origin can one day be proven. You instead need hard evidence and so far, I have yet to see any.[23] And I read Michael's blog. He is no scientist. You really need to listen to the real scientists and not those who discuss science with comedian Russel Brand (non scientist). There been so many times when scientists have been explaining in frustration that furin cleavage can be found naturally in many viruses. Yet such info gets filtered out by his many conspiracist fans. Michael's article is scientifically flawed when he presents furin cleavage sites as the ultimate proof that lab origin is indisputable. Despite so many scientists have already thoroughly explained how wrong that thinking is. Furin cleavage sites, however, exist in many other coronaviruses, such as feline coronaviruses and the virus that causes MERS. Because similar sequences for the cleavage site are found in other coronaviruses, “its presence is not at all suspicious or indicative of lab manipulation.[24] Wikipedia shouldn't take science news from someone who is a climate change denier and long time promoter of so many extreme conspiracy theories. Period.[25]49.180.44.81 (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ben Hu led the chimera experiments at WIV.
  • Yu Ping wrote the key thesis on the 9 Mojiang viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2.
@Theheezy: there's also more reliable sources reporting this as well
Which ones are those? All I could find are various heavily biased conservative-leaning non-RSes which don't independently investigate, they just re-report what Public.substack said: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, try to curb your ad hominems for this one: The 3 “Patients zero” scientists were already in "reliable source" The Sunday Times:
These aren't sources we typically give much reliability in matters of science. The Times hasn't been regarded as very reliable in matters of politics either since Murdoch took over. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange comment. Murdoch took over The Times in 1981! The Times is as reliable as it gets. Along with the FT, it's the least political/biased of the UK broadsheets. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But just to clarify, as far as I can tell the Ben Hu claims haven't been properly reported in an RS (apart from where they've been sourced directly from Public), so can't go in the article. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to speculate or consider the sources, most likely will be more reporting in a couple days. fiveby(zero) 17:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User "fiveby" wants to remind us Jun 19 2023 is 90 days following S.619, the "COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023" being signed into law by President Biden Mar 20 2023 which states: "Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall--
           (1) declassify any and all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)..."
If the US-security-apparatus indeed shows researchers at the WIV working with RaTG13 and related viruses were the first infected with COVID, this puts US funding at the epicenter of the pandemic. → Karolina Corin: U.S. funded discovery of close COVID-19 relative at the center of origins controversy, U.S. Right to Know, June 16, 2023. Our "Knowing" depends on the US-security-apparatus. --87.170.197.3 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Times (and The Times) has been discussed for reliability numerous times and is considered [[WP:GREL]] by Wikipedia [[WP:RSPSOURCES]]. It is owned by Murdoch and is considered conservative or centre-right according to Wikipedia; but there is no note on [[WP:RSPSOURCES]] that the Sunday Times might be biased. Wikipedia refers to it as a [[quality press]]/broadsheet for its “seriousness.” During the Murdoch years it has had some bumps including publishing unproven and disproven theories on AIDS. But the consensus is it is GREL and apparently not considered biased so we should go with that unless there’s a specific reason to establish a particular article is unreliable for a particular reason(s). JustinReilly (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally reliable" does not mean "reliable for all purposes", particularly when there is evidence of untrustworthiness on a directly pertinent topic. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they released something, but can't yet find the report online. fiveby(zero) 16:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Now 404, NewsNation might have pulled that article, so who knows? fiveby(zero) 18:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now released. fiveby(zero) 13:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hilariously this document does not support any of the schlock reported by these various subpar news outlets. The silence from advocates of the lab leak is deafening. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key sentence in the report is "All agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection". Are you saying that the WSJ and the Times of London are subpar? As for Public, I agreed with you a week or two ago on that one, and still do. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can be reasonably certain there are some intelligence documents out there mentioning the names of our three WIV researchers. Near as i can tell all the rest is just news outlets giving free reign to the opinion and speculation of our three State Department investigators along with such as Ebright and Quay, with nothing really new? Another thing to consider is that The Sunday Times, despite their obvious one-sided presentation, did not publish the names being shopped around. Should all be far below the level required for mentioning in the article.
The idea that this report somehow debunks or refutes anything is equally farcical. It was simply a summary of what's already been made public, written, classified then declassified in order for the DNI to comply with the COVID-19 Origin Act.
Near as i can tell there is nothing in the most recent reporting that should alter the assessment of our rational actors. That would require, as has been already said, the information to be declassified so it can be evaluated. fiveby(zero) 16:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it only "debunks" or "refutes" in the sense that it does not substantiate what many lab leak proponents were saying it would substantiate. But you're right, it doesn't do so in a "positive rebuttal" sense.
I think the Science article from Jon Cohen is the only reason we should mention Ben Hu in the article, since it does mention the rumors, and categorical denial of them from Hu, who says he wasn't even sick in the fall of 2019, wasn't one of those three researchers, etc. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept earlier reported how that gain of function research, isn't seen as proof that the lab is behind Covid-19. Since none of the viruses listed in that US grant funded write-up are directly related to the virus that causes Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, and why the scientists unanimously told The Intercept that Wuhan experiments could not have directly sparked the pandemic.[33] And so unless the US government can confirm that their anonymous and speculative Intel is airtight and undeniable and officially state that it's a bioweapon, or scientists show some real proof. It's just original research and really politicised to claim the virus is a bioweapon at this stage of loose speculations and unbacked assumptions.49.181.87.71 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that last Intercept article is just shallowly reporting on what other papers are reporting. It is citing the Sunday Times and other outspoken individual bloggers, and writing what they are reporting. They doesn't actually say that they themselves believe the virus is a bioweapon. And even if they did, how could they ever say this when there is no actual official proof to confirm it? Only right wing media like Fox News or Sunday Times are too freely claiming (lab workers are infected with Covid-19) as a confirmed fact when it's really not. No professional impartial media are really claiming that Covid-19 is proven to be a bioweapon. They only can speculate but not claim it as a hard verified fact. 49.181.87.71 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This A weaker version of this has now been confirmed by the WSJ.[34][35] Ben Hu, a scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who had done extensive laboratory research on how coronaviruses infect humans, was identified in U.S. intelligence reports as one of the researchers who became ill in November 2019 with symptoms that American officials said were consistent with either Covid-19 or a seasonal illness. None of the researchers died. and The researchers’ names were noted last week in an article in Public, which publishes on the Substack platform, and were independently confirmed by the Journal. For me, this moves it from "we shouldn't cover it as the sourcing sucks" to "we should cover it as the sourcing is good". Adoring nanny (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"They became ill with Covid, or something else", not exactly confirmation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the statement confirmed by the WSJ is weaker than the one made by Public. It's another reason not to treat Public as WP:RS. I've edited my note above. But the WSJ does still draw, at length, a connection with LL. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not draw any connection to any theoretical lab leak. It says "These three researchers were sick in November 2019" which we already had sourcing for. The only thing this adds is that one of the three people was named "Ben Hu." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it does, repeatedly. The first one may fall under WP:HEADLINE. I'm unclear if this type of subheader is a headline or not, or how one would know. The others are squarely within the article. Identification of three who worked at Wuhan Institute of Virology fuels suspicion for proponents of lab-leak theory the three scientists “published on SARS-related coronavirus experiments done at inappropriately low biosafety settings that could have resulted in a laboratory infection.” and Hu is a leading researcher on coronaviruses who worked closely with Shi Zhengli, the leading expert on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. also Yu Ping, who also worked for the institute along with Zhu, is an expert on the geographic spread of coronaviruses and wrote a thesis that was the first to describe a new family of SARS-like coronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2. There's more about LL in there, too. I can't quote the full article per WP:COPYVIO. But the connection is repeated and obvious. They don't describe a specific LL scenario, sure. But saying it's not about LL is just not true. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
saying it's not about LL is just not true
That's not what I said. I said they cannot draw any connections. All they do is speculate and theorize that a connection could exist. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably 24 more hours before US govt declassifies this information. J mareeswaran (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the sourcing is now good and think it should go in the article (obviously in the WSJ form of words not the Substack one). No harm in waiting a few days to see how it's reported elsewhere or if the US intelligence is declassified if that's what others want to do. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing was always good. WHAT in the WORLD are you talking about??? --2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:90EC:568A:19ED:47DE (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's really old news being rehashed again. Media does that every few months [36] because it sells. But nothing got proven here. Merely unconfirmed rumours about the lab workers. Should go without saying, but you shouldn't believe in unconfirmed spook rumours 100 percent as it's weak sauce. WSJ writing that it "fuels suspicion for proponents of lab-leak theory", isn't even confirmation that it's verified and they don't fully support Michael Shellenberger's extreme claims either on that such rumours can be full acceptable proof that the lab workers were patient Zero for Covid-19.49.180.84.109 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out, the new information is the names of those who went to hospital. It's not being written about because it 'sells newspapers', it's being written about because it's an important new piece of information. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A name doesn't change the fact that people can go to hospital for different reasons outside of Covid. My only point is that if one cares about integrity of Wikipedia, it's important not to give too much weight to an unconfirmed speculation particularly when it's vulnerable to being politicised and out of context. A necessary relevant point here is that when one say someone went to hospital. It sounds very serious in the West. But in China, do note they do things so differently there where unlike in the West where family doctors and clinics handle most outpatient services, most Chinese prefer to visit large public hospitals for their not so serious outpatient consultations instead. [37] In China’s health care system, people with ailments typically go to large hospitals in big cities and wait in long queues for hours to see a specialist rather than starting with a family doctor in their communities.[38] Such basic context is suspiciously not even mentioned in the US Intel reports. And for all you know, those lab workers could have non serious flu yet hyped up by the media and US gov. If lab workers were infected with a bioweapon and knew it. They should have protocols to quarantine themselves instead of going to a crowded public hospital. And the US Intel reports are not even transparent with how they managed to collect their info. So why I would urge caution in giving too much weight towards US Intel reports as they have not earned enough trust to be regarded as a high quality reliable source. Especially when the US Government themselves, who knows the entire details of the report, have graded their lab escape theory as (Low Confidence); meaning "scant, questionable, fragmented or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from this information."[39]49.180.84.109 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make some good points. To me it still seems like a relevant piece of information, but I agree it doesn't prove anything and we should be careful to weight it appropriately and in line with the sources. I would be tempted to wait until the US intelligence is declassified and for further reporting. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of comments here insisting that “this does not prove 100% that it was a lab leak.” Yes, obviously. We definitely would NOT say that in the article. And no one who has familiarity with editing Wikipedia would suggest that we would. No one who regularly edits this article would even think even in their own mind as opposed to writing it in the article that it proves a lab leak.
To those saying it adds nothing; I strongly disagree. The names of those hospitalized is significant- not as a smoking gun but as another brick in the wall, ie another of the many pieces of circumstantial evidence for a lab leak. When very extremely circumstantial evidence is offered for zoonosis, it is asserted as though it’s strong proof- eg no pandemic is known to have been caused by a lab leak (though I and others would argue there is a good circumstantial case that both Lyme disease and Ebola 2019 were lab leaks- Lyme bioengineered, Ebola 2019 not; NB I’m not arguing this go in the article), though SARS-1 is known to have escaped from labs 4 or more times, four of these lab leaks being from Chinese labs. JustinReilly (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[63]49.180.84.109 argues that intel and other agencies that conclude with low confidence for lab leak should be thrown out. We should not, but if we did every agency and body that leaned toward zoonosis would be thrown out because they we ALL made with low confidence. The only agency report on the subject not made with low confidence was FBI’s which opined with moderated confidence that it was a lab leak.
Re Chinese hospitals: OK, in general good to bring up context, but I was under the impression that the 3 were hospitalized, and were not outpatients. I’m pretty sure that’s what RSs and all others have always said was reported. Do you have a source indicating they were just outpatient clinic doctor visits? If they were hospitalized, it could still be flu, but what is the chance that three of the worlds most prominent coronavirus researchers including on CoV Gain of Function who have published on that working at the worlds biggest and most prominent CoV lab all got a case of flu at the same time so bad they were hospitalized. I know flu is attributed with having a large mortality and serious morbidity burden, but just common sense, I am middle aged and have never known anyone personally or really heard from anyone connected by a couple of degrees of separation ever being hospitalized for flu. And that is just the beginning of the very convincing circumstantial case.
There’s a principle in the law- res Ipsa Loquitor- It speaks for itself- winning one $5K scratch off ticket is luck, two a coincidence, winning 50 $5K tickets in a row is “no evidence” according to many in science when the “no evidence” narrative benefits them. When that narrative does not the same evidence is characterized as “proof.” I’ve see it so many times in peer reviewed papers etc it’s ridiculous.
Point being there’s such a thing as common sense- we don’t need randomized controlled trials or any other evidence to prove that wearing a parachute when jumping out of a plane is a safe and effective intervention and is even probably a good idea despite the 100% utter and complete lack of “evidence” (by which they mean lack of RCTs, or sufficient RCTs or MetaAnalyses or sufficient number of sufficiently conclusive MetaAnalyses. Note I am not arguing that we say in the article that it’s likely that a lab leak occurred, I am talking about critically thinking about this and other controversies in medicine
and that there are extreme detriments to the guidelines and policies by which we decide content of articles especially on medicine. JustinReilly (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JustinReilly: What you're saying seems to be pure OR. And it demonstrates why we dislike OR on Wikipedia. Even assuming all you say is true, there are two obvious fallacies with your reasoning. One if these three people were working closely together enough that they could allegedly all be infected with COVID-19, they could all have been infected with a particularly nasty influenza strain or whatever that made hospitalisation more likely. Two and probably more importantly is that hospitalisation doesn't mean they need hospital level care because of the severity of their symptoms. The whole point of this is that these people were either working in or at least associated enough with a lab working with coronaviruses that this alleged lab leak could happen. It may very well be they were hospitalised when they fell sick as a precaution so they could be properly isolated in an environment designed for that, just in case there was in fact a lab leak. At some stage tests showed it was simple influenza or something else and they would have been released, or maybe they were just isolated until there was confidence they were no longer infectious. Note also that while it's well accepted COVID-19 is significantly worse on average than the influenza, it often isn't bad enough in 45 year olds to require hospitalisation and there's no particular reason to think an early strain of COVID-19 would have been worse in this regard. So while it may be more likely that 3 middle age people were hospitalised for COVID-19, it's still not that likely especially in the absence of an existing massive outbreak (i.e. there were a lot of people who were not hospitalised) which poses questions of its own. So in reality your "this is so unlikely" has the similar problems even if it was COVID-19. To be clear, this is pure OR on my part as well, I'm not suggesting we add it anywhere. I'm simply using it to demonstrate why your OR is flawed. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Justito: Your signature doesn't match your username so my ping failed. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole argument of the article on Substack was based or twisting on what the US report allegedly said. Yet I taken a deep look at the newly declassified US reports released yesterday. Report can be summed up as "No direct evidence COVID began in Wuhan lab", US intelligence report says. And that, "almost all" the agencies studying the issue assess the virus "was not genetically engineered". [40] I didn't want to say I told you so but yesterday's declassified US report said those several researchers were only "mildly" ill. As in not having life threatening serious cases that demands serious overnight stays at a hospital. And no indication that any of these researchers were hospitalized because of the symptoms consistent with Covid-19. Instead "one researcher may have been hospitalized in this time frame for treatment of a non-respiratory medical condition." Contrary to all that sensationalised media and Substack newsletter hype in the past weeks, US intelligence report shows nothing new to support lab leak, but further clarifies, what they had omitted all this time, that those hospitalized researchers" symptoms were not diagnostic of COVID-19. (And such declassified info should probably be updated into wikipedia article); While several Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers “fell mildly ill in Fall 2019,” the report acknowledges, “they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with COVID-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to COVID-19.” The excerpt above is directly from page 6 of yesterday's US declassified intel report. [41]49.180.178.41 (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just wanted to add for
completeness, that the DNI report also said that some of the sick researchers had illness consistent with, but not necessarily diagnostic of, COVID- ie some of them could have had COVID but we don’t know if any did. JustinReilly (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Science category

I guess we're doing B-R-R-D now? Why doesn't the body of the article observe fringe prior to inclusion in this category? Have editors reviewed this category? Does the lab leak theory have as much skepticism as say, touchless knockouts or aromatherapy? SmolBrane (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we have a section about fringe science, which does not link to fringe science, so I see a use for the category. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We really need a new RfC around just how it should be treated. As pointed out above, the old one is 2 years old. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly no consensus on these talk pages for this categorization. How can it be fringe when the WHO and all US Intelligence agencies consider it a plausible scenario? As the WHO Director General has said, "lab accidents happen, it's common". A fringe theory is one with little or no scientific support, which is clearly not the case here.
Suggest we remove it for now until the inevitable RFC. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is more than one LL theory. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Trying to think of other "theory" articles that actually refer to a cluster of theories. String theory for one. Are there others? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be fringe when the WHO and all US Intelligence agencies consider it a plausible scenario?
1) There are multiple lab leak theories, and some are more FRINGE-applicable than others. For instance, the idea that Anthony Fauci and the NIAID intentionally conspired with Peter Daszak and the Chinese government to hide evidence of a previous set of gain-of-function experiments which inserted furin cleavage sites into the virus, and then virus was what caused the lab leak is undisputedly FRINGE. And by far the least plausible (aside from the bioweapons theory). The Intelligence community and basically all relevant scientists agree there is no evidence that this happened.
2) There are many "plausible" FRINGE ideas. For instance, it is plausible that extraterrestrials are visiting (and have visited) the Earth to conduct experiments on humans. It absolutely does not defy the laws of physics. It is just very unlikely. But it's also FRINGE and does not have mainstream scientific acceptance. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing up the meaning of 'plausible' with 'possible'. Plausible means "seeming reasonable or probable". PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what's being called "fringe" here is apparently now being reported as plausible by Calvert & Arbuthnot at the Times of London. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But not all, which is the point. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there policy on whether or not an article should be considered fringe simply because portions of it refer to something that is fringe? My gut is that any unproven theory is likely to have multiple versions, and some of those versions will not have much support. String theory being an example. It is not considered fringe, even though there are certainly hundreds, and perhaps thousands of versions of it, and most of them must be fringe. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KInd of, its called wp:v, if RS say it so do wwe, RS call a lot of this fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Catagorising the whole article as fringe when the main part of the article is not fringe will just confuse people. If it's that much of a concern, I'd suggest we just delete the 'fringe views on genetic engineering' section. It adds nothing to the article and is Wikipedia:UNDUE anyway. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does the lab leak theory have as much skepticism as say, touchless knockouts or aromatherapy?
No, but it definitely has as much skepticism (if not more) as the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis, Panspermia, and Vertebral subluxation. Which all have this category.
That last one is especially interesting. Because a majority of the US public think that Chiropractic works [42]. Even though the scientific consensus is that it does not. [43][44][45] Strikingly similar to the Lab leak theory public-science divide. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do any serious scientists believe chiropractic works (genuine question)? Because there are plenty of renowned scientists who believe the possibility that COVID originated in a lab should be taken seriously. The head of the WHO Tedros Ghebreyesus, former head of the Chinese CDC George Gao, former head of the US CDC Robert Redfield, computational virologist Jesse Bloom, just to name a few. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The status or credentials of the person presenting the view doesn't equate to scientific consensus or evidence. This topic meets the criteria of WP:FRINGE because it departs significantly from mainstream science and has little or no scientific support. In science, the meaning of mainstream is that there is scientific consensus within research and scholarship. That's not the same as the WHO or FBI saying it's plausible. The void century 19:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many "plausible" FRINGE ideas. For instance, it is plausible that extraterrestrials are visiting (and have visited) the Earth to conduct experiments on humans. It absolutely does not defy the laws of physics. It is just very unlikely. But it's also FRINGE and does not have mainstream scientific acceptance. — Shibbolethink.
Not “absolutely defying the laws of physics” means something is possible, but certainly does not mean something’s plausible. Very unlikely ideas are implausible. Plausible means believable- it could easily or could well be true, or could easily or could well have happened. FRINGE ideas are not plausible.
There is a subheading of FRINGE Bioweapons ideas. If someone wants to put a link from this to FRINGE, please do, but the whole article should not be categorized under FRINGE.
If you want to go to a RfC, OK, but it certainly should be removed until such time as you get a favorable determination from the RfC. What’s with all the reversions? People (I believe you included if I am not mistaken) get on my case if I revert back once to an edit I make that is backed up with good reasoning and is seemingly mindlessly reverted with no explanation in plausibly obstructist reverting. Someone please revert until there is consensus or RfC. JustinReilly (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how wikipedia policy defines FRINGE nor how scholars define it. A more appropriate RfC would ask whether the article should describe the theory as "evidence-based". I think that RfC would be opposed, but if you want to go to a RfC, OK. As it stands, the article describes the theory as fringe science. The void century 01:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible means believable
Actually it means "has the veneer of a reasonable possibility". Which many such theories I described have. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to stay out of the slow WP:EW here. My own opinion is that the current view in the scientific literature is that LL is a minority scientific viewpoint, i.e. WP:FRINGE/ALT, not WP:FRINGE/QS. In mainstream WP:RS, it is much closer to a 50/50 split between Z and LL. Perhaps a slight favorite to Z still in mainstream sources, but perhaps not and definitely very close at this point. And public opinion favors LL in most countries. I have no idea if the category of "fringe theories" includes WP:FRINGE/ALT or not. The fact that peoples' opinions differ, as seen above, shows it is high time for a new WP:RfC. I would be happy to work with anyone (i.e. Shibbolethink) on such an RfC. It might not be hard to get a wording we both agree is neutral. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RS reporting about the Lab leak theory is not an endorsement of it. The theory is rooted in a conspiracy theory relying heavily on accident (fallacy) and has no scientific evidence. That's WP:FRINGE/QS. WP:FRINGE/ALT theories usually solve conundrums that existing science can't solve. In this case, existing science can solve it. There is evidence that Covid-19 came from zoonosis, and that's what most scholars believe. The void century 01:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it is pretty obvious that we are not going to come to a consensus in this discussion. We need an RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if the category of "fringe theories" includes WP:FRINGE/ALT or not.
The guidelines seem to imply that in scientific matters, pseudoscience and Fringe are synonymous. Can anyone shed light on this? I think it’s very unlikely that all alternative theoretical formulations would be considered fringe. JustinReilly (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lab leak theory is rooted in a conspiracy theory relying heavily on accident (fallacy) and has no scientific evidence. That's WP:FRINGE/QS.
@The void century, by the linked “fallacy of accident,” did you mean that the lab leak theory relies heavily on coincidences as circumstantial evidence? That’s not what the fallacy of accident seems to be from the link. What did you mean exactly? The question of COVID’s origin is a question of “what happened?”, exactly, to get us this virus. Like other questions of what happened in a specific context, It’s not necessarily a question of pure science, as non-scientific evidence can legitimately form some of the basis for our conclusions about what happened. It’s more similar to courtroom questions like “what happened that night to cause the murder” where both scientific and non-scientific evidence may be germane, than a purely scientific question like “what is the genome of SARS-2.” Thus, the fact that there isn’t direct scientific evidence of either origin hypothesis does not mean that either is FRINGE. JustinReilly (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacy of accident is a particularly weak and easily disguised type of circumstantial evidence. The false logic:
1. There is a lab in Wuhan that studies coronaviruses.
2. Covid-19 is a coronavirus that originated in Wuhan.
3. Covid-19 originated in the Wuhan lab.
The point is that it's deductively valid but unsound. It would be like saying this year's NYC flu outbreak came from Mt. Sinai because Mt. Sinai studies flu viruses, even though there are better explanations with evidence.
LL has no empirical evidence. No clustering near the site, pattern of cases, genetic explanation, nor confirmed cases. Just gut feelings. There is empirical evidence that the virus passed to humans from animals in the Huanan market -- confirmed early cases, clustering of cases, spatial association with live animal sales, genetic explanations, and a history of coronaviruses originating from zoonosis. There's no equivalence between these two "theories". One is a suspicion with 0 evidence, the other is science that is widely recognized within research as being the most likely scenario. LL is Fringe. Not pseudoscience, but not science either. The void century 15:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudoscience is a subset of fringe. Anything that departs significantly from the mainstream is fringe. Some fringe theories are still scientific - they don't incorporate unfalsifiable claims the way that pseudoscience does. An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything might be an example - it has few adherents, so it is fringe. But it will be possible to falsify it if certain subatomic particles are detected, so it is not pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @PieLover3141592654: Catagorising the whole article as fringe when the main part of the article is not fringe will just confuse people
JustinReilly (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HAs it been demonstrated the m ain part of the article is not fringe. What is the "main part of the article"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrated? I don't know that we even have a definition! Possibilities include WP:FRINGE/QS, WP:FRINGE/ALT, "Fringe" according to WP:WEIGHT, and probably something else I haven't thought of. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So then we have definitions of fringe, what has not been demonstrated is that this is not a fringe topic, just that certain parts of it MAY not be. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Definitions". That's a problem! One wants one definition. Pretty sure it's up to those seeking inclusion to demonstrate that it is fringe. But prior to any of that, we need to know what we are talking about. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NO, we have to show RS call it fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven has re-inserted the category with edit summary = "This is long stadning, it needs consnesus to change it." I believe this is false because as far as I can tell the category was originally added on 27 June 2023, and even if was older the policy (WP:ONUS) is that consensus is necessary to re-insert. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong it seems. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through this discussion, it appears that we have reached consensus to re-insert the Fringe category. Per WP:CONSENSUS Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. While there are editors who disagree, I don't see any putting forth a significant policy-based argument on how this topic shouldn't be categorized as Fringe science. Is there a single HQ peer-reviewed source entertaining the idea of LL, in which it's not dismissed as either fringe, conspiracy theory, or unsupported by science/evidence? If not, then it's clearly not science, and that's what the fringe category indicates. The void century 15:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, that is not the relevant test of whether a subject is fringe. To quote Jimbo Wales:
"The consensus in the mainstream media (which is the relevant media for this, rather than MEDRS sources, as it is a social/geopolitical question, as opposed to a medical question) seems to me to have shifted from "This is highly unlikely, and only conspiracy theorists are pushing this narrative" to "This is one of the plausible hypotheses". We can reject conspiracy theorists and agenda-pushers, but we should not in the process blind ourselves to what is being said in reliable sources."
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 246#covid povs PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jimbo's is not a reliable or relevant view. When we talk about whether "it" is fringe, we need to be clear what "it" is. Allowing there is a small, non-zero possibility SCV2 might have leaked from a lab is not fringe, pretty much everything beyond that is. LL stans love to use the Motte-and-bailey fallacy to try and buy respectability for wild speculation by leveraging the "non-zero possibility" idea -- and Wikipedia should not play that game. Even if LL might have had some brief moment of semi-respectability in some US media, by now it's pretty much just all seen as conspiracy theory with a few grifters and crazies left pushing it.[46] Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zoonotic origin proponents have zero evidence to back up their claims, and indeed several factors against them. Two strains at the market suggests it was not the origin, "multi market origin" is xⁿ more unlikely, the authorities specifically sought cases related to market thereby biasing the data, there is no demonstrated route from the nearest relative to Wuhan in the wild animal trade(pangolins were not on sale), but there is for the lab leak theory since the scientists were bringing samples back to the lab for research. Project Defuse, proposed doing research which would have created specifically this kind of virus by addition of a novel cleavage site. We also now have the internal communications of the scientists who published the proximal origins paper, who very well knew how plausible a lab leak was. High Tinker (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New source

Medhi Hasan on lab leak.[47] Basically what we already know, but some nice summaries of how the IC stuff is a nothingburger and how the LL fanbois are becoming increasingly ridiculous. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mehdi Hasan, a well-known scientist who works for the totally unbiased media outlet MSNBC (which didn't spend the entirety of the pandemic deifying Fauci and pharmaceutical companies). YumaDuplícito (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An op-ed from a talk show host? Really? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accurately reflecting the sources

@Adoring nanny I don't think this revert was appropriate. My changes improved the article to accurately reflect the sources and the body of the article. The current scientific consensus is that the theory is unsupported by science. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY says that the lead should reflect the article body. Also I'd prefer if you favor reverting only elements you think are inaccurate rather than every edit, per WP:MASSR. The void century 18:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through multiple discussions around this issue. The prior stable version was the result of a lot of haggling, and changing it would require a consensus. Briefly, the sourcing does support the statement that most scientists do not support LL. But we do not have a consensus that there is a scientific consensus against LL. One editor's opinion does not change that. This should be returned to the prior stable version, per WP:BRD. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time. Please explain why you take issue with the wording unsupported by the current scientific consensus. The void century 05:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've had the discussion many times before, most recently a couple of weeks ago. The expert consensus, as per the WHO, all US intelligence agencies, former heads of US and China CDCs etc is that both a lab leak and natural origin are plausible.
We can say that most scientists believe a natural origin is the more likely of the two as per the previous wording, as that is supported by sources. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, plausibility is nowhere near the same thing as scientific support, evidence, or consensus. The void century 13:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I self-reverted the change to that sentence pending the outcome of this discussion. The void century 05:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The void century: Thanks, but you've left in place changes I don't agree with either, namely a WikiVoice statement that LL is not a "theory", linked from the very top of the lead. That shouldn't be there either, unless consensus can be attained. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PieLover3141592654: no we cannot say that most scientists believe a natural origin is the more likely of the two because that is wp:false balance. It implies a reasonable degree of equivalence between possibilities that are of broadly similar probability. In this case, they are not. Yes, a LL is "plausible" because LLs do happen. But by the same token it is also "plausible", though even less likely, that the virus was brought into Wuhan [inadvertently or otherwise] by a foreign virologist attending the conference there. No competent scientist would ever declare impossible an event with a finite probability, but may well make a considered judgement on what is most likely. Viruses evolve continually; transfer between host species occurs frequently: most influenza epidemics start with an avian/human or porcine/human transfer. High frequency events with no biocontainment practices v very low frequency events with containment protocols, no real contest. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's from a strong source. The Amy Maxmen ref in the article. Unfortunately, I'm failing to get around the paywall now. But I have seen the source, and it used the phrase "Most scientists". Adoring nanny (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Big difference between "most scientists believe that a zoonotic origin is the most likely" v "more likely of the two". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest we change the wording. The existing wording (i.e. "most scientists believe that a zoonotic origin is the most likely") is fine and reflects how the sources phrase it. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "most scientists believe" implies that it's opinionated. The reason I want it changed to either unsupported by science or unsupported by the current scientific consensus is because consensus and science are more specific words-- they clarify that the "belief" is informed by empirical evidence, peer review and dialogue. The void century 16:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have long disliked the current wording ...most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis... for a number of reasons, especially what you've just pointed out. The most likely/plausible/parsimonious explanation is spillover occurring at the wet market. Based on current evidence some research related hypotheses cannot be excluded, but that does not justify a lab leak theory. fiveby(zero) 17:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, I support your footnote about hypothesis v theory. I don’t think it’s controversial here and think u should revert that edit to put your footnote back in. JustinReilly (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that 2/3 of the editors who opposed these changes are now indef-blocked for fringe Covid editing, I am planning to reinstate the edits except for the footnote which is still being discussed below. I'll wait a little bit longer to see if there are any further disagreements with the changes. The void century 16:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about a compromise? The biggest problem I have with your proposed edit is the deletion of the word "likely". Deleting this word implies we know for sure what happened, which is against what the WHO [48] and US intelligence agencies, asked to investigate this by Biden, say [49]. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing "most scientists believe that X is likely" to "most scientists believe X" implies we know for sure what happened? Seriously? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "I believe in God" and "I believe God likely exists". Likely is used later in the article, so I don't see why we'd remove it here and deliberately use imprecise language. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely" listed at Miscellany for deletion

The essay User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely has been listed at Miscellany for deletion to determine whether its use and function meets the essay guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this essay at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached. The void century 18:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting this here. I try to keep an eye out for all this discussions, but I might miss it if it were not for posts like yours. Theheezy (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks! JustinReilly (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WTW:Theory

Folks, how is this page labeled a "theory" in its title? In the colloquial sense it is, but in the scientific sense it is not a theory. This is a confusing title to give this article. At best it is a hypothesis. It is marginally better described as a "proposal" or a "speculation".

Perhaps there are media sources which use the term "theory" loosely. But since we have at least some deference to the scientific community at Wikipedia, I'm sure there is a better word to use than "theory" in this article.

jps (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical level I agree with you, the use of theory here is extremely loose but I'm struggling to come up with a better title... Best I've got is "COVID-19 lab leak theories" which solves the problem of people thinking that there is somehow one unified theory of lab leak or whatever and not a whole gaggle of competing, complementary, and contradictory ideas. Doesn't address the technical inaccuracy though... But on the other hand the conspiracy theories should not be legitimized as scientific hypotheses and theories (at least colloquially) covers both the stuff that comes from real experts/academics and the more loony stuff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Lab leak proposals", then would be a fairly neutral description of this hodge-podge, no? Or just get rid of the final word entirely? "COVID-19 lab leak" is a pretty clear catch-all these days. jps (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Lab Leak Theory" is the WP:COMMONNAME.[50][51][52] Adoring nanny (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස agreed. I thought my footnote was a good compromise between WP:COMMONNAME and clarity, but maybe I was mistaken given that the article also covers conspiracy theories. The void century 22:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think “Lab Leak Theories,” is the best but “Lab Leak Theory” is fine too. I use “hypothesis/es” myself, but agree “Theory/ies” is a better title.
“COVID-19 Lab Leak,” “Lab Leak Proposal” and “…Speculation” are are non-contenders IMHO. JustinReilly (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my favorite so far would be "COVID-19 lab leak idea" or "COVID-19 lab leak" from a most widely-colloquially-used sense. "Idea" is most widely used in the scientific literature in our best available sources: e.g. Recent debate has coalesced around two competing ideas: a ‘‘laboratory escape’’ scenario and zoonotic emergence. in The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 2#Requested move 26 July 2021. If I recall correctly, there was some debate about whether a theory or a hypothesis conveys more certainty/reliability. I always thought that a theory was firmer than a hypothesis, but I think some people believe the opposite. There may be regional variations of English at play. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Theory" as a word has way too many connotations and variations of definition for it to be appropriate in this context. The problem is, of course, that these variations can be used to promote a lot of misconceptions and outright untruths. I'm reminded of Evolution is just a theory, for example. jps (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some years ago, there was a big gigantic argument about whether it should be called the "theory" or the "hypothesis", and it went on and on, round and round, until everybody got out of breath and fell over, and what happened was that it ended up being called the "theory". At the time, I was opposed to this, and I guess I still am (a "hypothesis" is generally conjecture that hasn't been conclusively validated, whereas a "theory" is generally pretty well settled). But I do not think that it matters a whole lot at this point. A lot of the arguments for and against each position were based on contingent political issues (many of them so minor as to have been completely forgotten by now), as has been the case for many things throughout history. Like many things, it is probably just best to accept that the official thing everyone agrees on will be slightly off. For example, the United States celebrates the anniversary of its independence on July 4, whereas the actual declaration was made on July 2 — good luck getting everyone to change that. jp×g 02:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No doubt there is tension between WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:LABEL, so I'll just say here that Wikipedia is in the unique position to be able to shape official things when they are new-ish like this. I don't get the impression that many mainstream publications that have used the "theory" label are particularly attached to it as such. They probably did not do a lot of worrying about it, unlike us. Now, I don't think we need to go around righting great wrongs, of course, but I also think that we have an opportunity here to gain some precision with terminology here in a way that may help inform curious readers who come to this page hoping to find out facts of the matter. I think we all agree that the word "theory" isn't quite right. Hell, maybe nothing is quite right. But if there is something that can be done that is more right, let's do that. jps (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've long favored this article as placing 'lab leak' correctly within scientific inquiry, but don't know if it would help with terminology. "So-called lab-leak hypothesis", "ostensible lab-leak hypothesis" and "conspiratorial cognition"; so 'hypothesis' also not quite right. There's an RfC ruling of 'no consensus' for 'conspiracy theory', but i don't think that prevents getting as right as possible in the lead and content what you can't in the title. Keeping as 'theory' might simplify the job and help distinguish those putting forth a 'theory' without evidence and those expressing legitimate uncertainty. fiveby(zero) 18:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific community uses 'theory' and i think beyond colloquial sense. You have put this forth as a 'theory' and yet there is no evidence. In a way an effort to educate us as to just the point you are making. Lab leak proponents are not constructing and then testing a hypothesis, they are claiming evidence for and trying to turn legitimate scientific uncertainty into 'likely'. I favored The void century's approach of trying to explain this and then move on to discussion in terms of evidence.
Does 'hypothesis' then mischaracterize what's going on and give too much credit? Does it change the scope of the article? Consider Ian Lipkin's "...a theory of his own, pointing to another Wuhan laboratory - run by the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control... That's obviously 'theory' in the sense of: this might be a viable research related origin scenario (field collection) that can't yet be excluded, and maybe indistinguishable from other scenarios. There are indications this might be the DOE's reason for their low-confidence assessment. We currently roll that up into 'lab leak' vs. 'natural zoonosis', but i have no clue at all whether it's either. It looks to me like he is keeping his eye on the ball, his job: "relentless focus on the origins of the virus has obscured the primary objective: preventing future pandemics."
So if it's 'hypothesis' do we need to change from what should be fairly simple description: a theory without supporting evidence; to discussing viable scenarios? Given the current approach to the article content, I don't know how we could include something such as Lipkin's field collection scenario without ending up just feeding the conspiracy theory. fiveby(zero) 16:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even "one or the other" is misleading without more context. We know where the natural reservoir is, even when we don't always successfully trace the adaptation path. —PaleoNeonate – 02:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong view on theory vs. hypothesis. Hypothesis seems more accurate.
  • Perhaps just me, but "COVID-19 lab leak", to my ears, sounds like a historical event that definitely happened rather than a hypothesis about something that may or may not have happened. I suppose it's also possible it could get confused with the the 2021 incident described here.
  • Again, perhaps just me, but lab leak proposal sounds to me like someone is proposing to leak COVID-19 from a lab :).
PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support moving the article to "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theories", because that's what this article is about. The non-conspiracy stuff can go into the Investigations article. Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate is a distraction, it really meets the first half of the definition, "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe", and we can gather evidence to support the theory. What we really should be discussing is recently released documents showing top scientists conspiring to suppress discussion of the lab leak, while simultaneously acknowledging it was highly likely. High Tinker (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: Returning to the original question, in a scientific sense, either "postulate" or "premise" might be more appropriate wording. "Thesis" might even be more correct, but the meaning may not be as well understood by the casual reader. Mojoworker (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those words seem correct. It's at best an "idea" or "proposal". jps (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and various moves have already been discussed, see the archives, has anything new come to light that would necessitate reopening this issue? High Tinker (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no "direct" evidence

Note Justito has been indef'd, so no explanation will be forthcoming. Bon courage (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Justito, I'd like to question these edits. You made the following changes:

  • no evidence -> no direct evidence
  • particularly those alleging genome engineering -> particularly some alleging genome engineering

Can you explain your reasoning? The void century 19:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 11, 2023 publication

I don't know if this should be added or not, but I wanted to make everyone here aware of its existence so they could offer their opinions on whether or not it is notable and relevant enough to include.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023.07.11-SSCP-Interim-Staff-Report-Re.-Proximal-Origin_FINAL.pdf

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty solid accounting of Fauci and Collins's participation in the lab leak coverup, so yeah I'd say it's relevant. Further, it bolsters the reliability of this page which is severely lacking in credible sourcing. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:2D54:A14E:D479:4DF7 (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a bit more specific with "above"? High Tinker (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its being discussed above in another thread, it is unhelpful to have to watch two or three threads on the same topic. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1165793218"