Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

primary source

with the mainstream media downplaying and denying it as a valid scientific theory. this cannot be sourced to a primary source such as a US oversight house report which is partisan and not WP:MEDRS Andre🚐 21:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that this NY Mag article or this NPR transcript provides adequate sourcing for that statement? Or do you think that the statement would be better if written simply as media instead of mainstream media? Poppa shark (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that neither is sufficient sourcing for this to be in the lead section given PRIMARY, MEDRS, etc. The Chait NY Mag piece is practically an opinion column. The NPR transcript even if you assumed it was a reliable source for scientific and medical topics, doesn't even say that. Andre🚐 01:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Current consensus is that sources do not need to be MEDRS High Tinker (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
They do for WP:BMI. However, an interpretation of Chait's opinion is not appropriate for anything (biomedical or not). Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
My reading of WP:BMI, is that it doesn't apply to beliefs or history. The claim being made is about the historical beliefs of the mainstream media with respect to the lab leak theory being a scientific theory. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
That's wasn't my point. Bon courage (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't understand your point then. What is your point? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
an interpretation of Chait's opinion is not appropriate for anything (biomedical or not). Bon courage (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes 100% this. It is WP:OR because it's an interpretation of an opinion. Not of a fact or an expert assessment. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems as though Andrevan is asking for a medical journal to source this claim, but I don't see how a medical journal is required for the claim, and frankly, it doesn't seem to be the right fit. The claim is about the lab leak theory in the eyes of the media, and medical journals don't generally write on how the media perceives something. The US government has been deemed by Wikipedians as a reliable source on Wikipedia. However, with respect to COVID, the reliability of the US government as reliable source is being questioned by some Wikipedians. Is the US government a reliable source for COVID information or not? As Wikipedians, do we get to determine based on our own opinions which US government publications are valid, and which are unreliable? Lenschulwitz (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
"The US government has been deemed by Wikipedians as a reliable source on Wikipedia" ← shit! when did that happen!? They're reliable for what they said (as everything is), but on myriad topics reliability would depend on context. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I thought I read once that the U.S. government was a reliable source, perhaps I remembered incorrectly. I expected to find it listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a reliable source. Do you doubt that the U.S. government is reliable with respect to this specific claim? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
What claim? Politicians and science generally don't mix (remember the Trump bleach injections?) Bon courage (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The claim: that the mainstream media did not believe that the lab leak theory was a valid scientific theory. By the way, this isn't a controversial claim. It isn't even a scientific claim. It is a claim, made by the U.S. government regarding the beliefs of the mainstream media. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Nobody (sane) believes it's a "valid" scientific theory. All the media reaction stuff is already covered in depth with good sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so it sounds as though you don't have a problem with the claim, or the source, is that correct? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
No. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I think we already discussed about the issue about the lab leak theory. I mean it was regarding conspiracy theory but I guess for some reason you believe that Department of Energy scientists and other researchers who come to similar conclusions are not sane. I don't think it is appropriate to use psychiatric words to mislabel researchers or other people who don't agree with one's points of view. See Political abuse of psychiatry. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
"Sane" in this case means "within the mainstream" and it's a term of art, for example in computer science, a "build environment" can be checked for "sanity." meaning basically rational, normal, and standard, and understandable. I doubt it is intended as a slight toward those with actual mental health concerns, but, I can see how it might be one of those terms, like "master" and "slave" for SATA drives, that will be deprecated to be more sensitive. Regardless I think the point stands that, sanity nonwithstanding, nobody in the authoritative, rational, reality-based source network seems to really treat the lab leak claims by the certain republican portions of the US govt to be serious scientifically Andre🚐 04:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Scientific theory states "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results". I.e., evidence and testing is required. Per what is meant by the term "scientific theory", anyone who thinks the lab leak conspiracy is a "valid" scientific theory has a few roos loose in the top paddock. TarnishedPathtalk 04:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Thinker78 is completely wrong in thinking any "scientists and other researchers" believe LL is a "scientific theory" of any kind in the terms they use (that in fact is the smear here). Bon courage (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
They might have a political smear that they wish to push, but anyone who knows what terms properly mean, can't say that the Lab Leak conspiracy is a scientific theory with any sort of integrity. TarnishedPathtalk 04:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Don't start adding stuff I didn't say Bon Courage. I wrote what I wrote. No idea why you mean with "of any kind in the terms they use". Also, it is very evident that many people in this page wants to drive the narrative to discredit the lab leak theory forcefully for some reason.
To me it is very obvious as an analytical person that a lab leak could have happened, as well as transmission from an animal. It wouldn't be the first time a laboratory accident happened. It wouldn't be the first time of a zoonotic transmission. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
You have your views, but if you want to understand what I meant you need to click and read scientific theory and pause before implying any respectable scientist thinks LL is that, and getting huffy about word use! Bon courage (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't need discrediting, it is discredited already. The second Rand Paul started pushing these sorts of unhinged conspiracies it was discredited. The second people push suppositions based on gaps in evidence, rather than relying on evidence for the development of knowledge, they discredit themselves. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
We already discussed lab leak and conspiracy theory as you can read in this talk page. It is not a conspiracy theory and it is interesting you think it is a conspiracy. Check Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Requested move 15 August 2023. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Some sources say it's a conspiracy theory, others it's mostly a conspiracy theory, others that it has allowed a rich variety of conspiracy theories to flourish. While the bare acknowledgement of LL being (remotely) possible is certainly a legit position to hold, pretty much everything encrusted onto this is crankoid/ignorant. Bon courage (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
More to the point this has only become passable as some kind of legitimate discourse in some quarters since Rand Paul, an exceedingly unhinged conspiracy theorist, has repeatedly used government resources to constantly push the narrative. TarnishedPathtalk 05:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
So show my any evidence for it then and not merely supposition based on a gap of evidence, which is a hallmark of conspiracy theories. TarnishedPathtalk 05:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Again, read the linked discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, no evidence. TarnishedPathtalk 08:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
You can't source the US house oversight committee for this claim. It doesn't necessarily have to be a medical journal, but the existing sourcing does not suffice. Andre🚐 18:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Andrevan, your statements are conclusory, but not explanatory, can you explain your reasoning so that I can better understand your perspective? Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
It's been explained. You can't use a WP:PRIMARY source (the US govt, a partisan oversight committee) for a controversial claim of fact. Andre🚐 19:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
What makes this a "controversial claim" in your eyes? Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
It's not reasonable to take something straight out of the partisan republican committee's statements, a primary source, and use that to assert something not obvious, and extremely politically charged ("the mainstream media downplayed and denied... etc"), it really beggars belief that we're still discussing it when there's obviously no policy-based argument that this would be ok. If you can find an authoritative expert source that is beyond reproach, perhaps this statement can come in. The sources provided are extremely thin as explained. Andre🚐 21:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Claims made by partisan nutters don't constitute evidence. TarnishedPathtalk 00:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
What makes this a "controversial claim" in your eyes?
Probably the fact that it's a claim that's difficult to source to higher quality sources. It's controversial because it deals with FRINGE topic material and how it is treated in the "mainstream" media. That's a hot button issue, as pretty explicitly set out in WP:FRINGE:
  • reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.
  • While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections
On wikipedia, extraordinary claims (such as how the "mainstream media" views the lab leak theory) require extraordinary sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Biden's DHHS Bans US Funding of Wuhan Lab

The Department of Health and Human Services has banned US funding of the Wuhan Lab. Why would these virulent right-wing lunatics do this? Anyhow, this should probably be included in the lede. https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/hhs-bars-wuhan-institute-of-virology-from-receiving-us-funds-for-next-10-years/ --2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:6927:26B8:106C:43F6 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The NY Post is not a reliable source on wikipedia. I see no reason why this should be included in the lead. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Utter rubbish. TarnishedPathtalk 02:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The cited documentation seems legitimate: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Debartment.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-issues-statement-after-wuhan-institute-of-virology-formal-debarment/
Let's wait and see if any news sources that have not been censored by Wikipedia begin to mention the issue as well. David A (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
We can't censor any sources, they would ignore us. We lack the power to tell any outside body what it can do. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Two terrible sources were provided. Find a legitimate source that states something that is DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Come to that does not involve wp:synthesis to draw links between this and allegations against the lab. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Irrelevant WP:SYNTH argument saying this has a connection to the LL theory. Doesn't change my previous statement. Additionally this gain of function stuff is unadulterated WP:FRINGE rubbish being pushed by the likes of Rand Paul that has no place in an encyclopedia. TarnishedPathtalk 09:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
What are you going on about? The fact that they've been doing gain of function is long established fact. Fauci even admitted it in an e-mail. Why comment if you're completely unfamiliar with the subject matter? That goes for most of the contributors to this page. You people come off as completely oblivious.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/email-shows-fauci-privately-acknowledged-gain-of-function-research-at-wuhan-lab/ar-AA1dSi5R -- 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:5071:3363:A83B:8403 (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, The Daily Caller, a very reliable source. /s — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying the Daily Caller wrote the e-mail? Interesting theory. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B571:340:4F65:976D (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
More of Rand Paul's delusions. There was no gain-of-function research. Posting unreliable neo-nazi publications doesn't make it so. TarnishedPathtalk 03:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Why is it acceptable to make enormous exaggerations by calling popular western newspapers neo-nazi publications, whereas the Chinese Communist Party, which uses several hundreds of absolutely inhumane gulags against virtually all political dissidents and three generations of all their family members, shouldn't be compared to Hitler's Germany? David A (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
We are not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

[[1]], so why the hell are people using such crap sourcing? Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Department of Energy and FBI views not represented in lede

The article text currently contains the following passage (I've made the sources and article titles visible for reference):

In February 2023, The Wall Street Journal reported that the US Energy Department, based on new intelligence, had shifted its view from "undecided" to "low confidence" that the pandemic originated with a lab leak.

<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Gordon|first1=Michael R. |last2=Strobel |first2=Warren P.|title=Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a?mod=hp_lead_pos1&mod=djem10point |date=February 26, 2023|access-date=February 26, 2023|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |language=en}}</ref></nowiki>

<ref name="TheHill_DoE_Feb_2023" /><ref name="NYT_DoE_Feb2023">{{cite web|last1=Barnes |first1=Julian E. |title=Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=27 February 2023 |date=26 February 2023}}</ref>

In the wake of these reports, FBI Director Christopher Wray reiterated the bureau's assessment, saying that the Government of China was doing its best to thwart any investigation.

<ref name="WaPo_Wray_FBI">{{cite news|last1=Kaur |first1=Anumita |last2=Diamond |first2=Dan |title=FBI director says covid-19 'most likely' originated from lab incident |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/fbi-director-christopher-wray-wuhan-lab/ |access-date=1 March 2023 |newspaper=Washington Post |date=28 February 2023}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903 |title=FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely |access-date=5 June 2023 |work=BBC News |date=1 March 2023}}</ref>

At present the lede makes no mention at all of the fact that the U.S. Department of Energy and FBI took the view that the lab leak theory was "most likely". Wouldn't a sentence be due? These are weighty sources. Andreas JN466 18:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The academic literature (such as review articles in virology and and epidemiology journals) disagrees that the lab leak was likely. To avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE between experts such as virologists and non experts such as nuclear scientists and police, the article generally does not give nearly as much weight to the latter. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
And in any case the state of play with the US view is that LL is over, as covered here[2] Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Predicted before with Holmes' "siren has definitely sounded" (Australians should not be allowed sports metaphors). Most likely will never be over. In my opinion that's why the "conspiratorial thinking" paper is such a great source for content. fiveby(zero) 15:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes indeed. As it observes

Like most pseudosciences, conspiracy theories are immune to contrary evidence. What sets conspiracy theories apart from pseudoscience is that they take immunity to a higher level by being actively ​“​self-sealing.​”​ As more evidence against the conspiracy emerges, the theory is kept alive by reinterpreting that contrary evidence as further proof of the conspiracy, creating an ever more elaborate and complicated theory.

Strands of the lab leak hypothesis exhibit these elaborate self-sealing epicycles

Bon courage (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The seventeen National Laboratories overseen by the US DOE are far from limited to nuclear science. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:9C4A:3502:555B:CF9D (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree a summary of the intelligence agency assessments should be in the lead (including the ones that lean the other way). They feature very heavily in mainstream media reports about this topic.
Disingenuous to call them non-expert in my opinion. Why would Biden have asked them to investigate if they were completely unqualified to do the job? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
"Some guy seems to trust their expertise. Let's trust their expertise too." That is not how expertise works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

2407:7000:9BF1:4000:9C4A:3502:555B:CF9D (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:9C4A:3502:555B:CF9D (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

More recently the intelligence services released a summary of intelligence in which they admitted that “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic”, which is unsurprising given that in order for the virus to have leaked from WIV it would have to have been there in the first place and there is ZERO evidence of that ever occurring. Can people please give up on this WP:FRINGE nonsense. TarnishedPathtalk 09:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
You cannot declare the lab leak hypothesis to be WP:FRINGE four weeks after chief scientist at the WHO publicly backed a fresh mission to investigate the possibility of such a lab leak. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:16E:FC20:5427:9D00 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Fringe ideas are investigated all the time, not only by fringe advocates but also by their opponents.
Your WP:OR is not relevant anyway, we still follow WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
There was not a skerrick of original research in my comment. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:16E:FC20:5427:9D00 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
You cannot declare is your personal conclusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I was unaware that WP:OR applied to opinions expressed on a talk page rather than just edits to the body of an article.
Has this topic been declared WP:FRINGE? If not, I expect that Tarnishedpath's talk page assertion that it is WP:FRINGE must also require reliable sourcing. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:16E:FC20:5427:9D00 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
opinions expressed on a talk page do not belong there if they are not related to edits to the body of an article. See WP:FORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
And has the lab leak theory been declared WP:FRINGE?
This is absolutely related to the contents of the article going forward. TarnishedPath has declared the lab leak theory WP:FRINGE and made a blanket request that other editors 'give up' on this 'nonsense'.
I suggest that this is a premature request. If Sir Jeremy Farrar is not yet giving up on this nonsensical theory (whatever doubts he may have about it), then neither should Wikipedia be. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:16E:FC20:5427:9D00 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Unless there are real scientific sources that back it up, it stays fringe. It is the default position. The burden of evidence is on the LL folks. And from "some scientist wants to research it" it does not follow "it is not fringe". Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Calls for politically motivated investigations are meaningless. Intelligence agencies admitting that “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic” says all that needs to be said. TarnishedPathtalk 22:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I've not seen any evidence at all that the head scientist at WHO is motivated by politics. Can you expand on that?
The fact that American intelligence has no present knowledge of an incident doesn't end the conversation in any way. The report continues 'All agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection.' 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:9C4A:3502:555B:CF9D (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting."
Therefore, according to an ABC News September article, "No definitive conclusion as to COVID's origins has yet been determined by the American intelligence or international public health bodies who have probed for answers."[1]
Regarding your dni.gov pdf, per WP:PRIMARY, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. [...] Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
In order for SARS-CoV-2 to have leaked from WIV it would have to have been there in the first place. Do you have evidence of it being there in the first place? No? No WP:RS? Nothing? TarnishedPathtalk 05:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Again, "both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting." Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Again, something can't have occurred if the necessary preconditions weren't present and there has been zero evidence presented that is the case. Thanks. TarnishedPathtalk 12:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
No evidence apparently. It is anyone's guess as to whether there was no virus or whether there was virus in there before the pandemic. After all, the government of China doesn't have a good track record in transparency. In fact, it routinely hides wrongdoing and silences whistleblowers. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the conspiratorial thinking our sources refer to. In science there's a concept called burden of evidence which means you start from nothing and need evidence to support propositions. There is no evidence of a lab cover-up, but there is evidence of a wet-market cover-up (which LL fans conveniently blow past).

This reversal of the normal burden of evidence manifests in other ways, such as the preference for exotic explanations connecting back to the purported conspiracy theory above banal explanations like simple coincidence, human error, or even malfeasance in service of a more mundane, genuine conspiracy. The Chinese government denied the existence of wet markets in China,[2] contrary to all available evidence (Xiao et al. 2021), but this clear attempt at misdirection has attracted considerably less attention than more exotic theories involving malfeasance in the laboratory.

Bon courage (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Except that it is not conspiratorial thinking but based in facts,[2] as opposed to your apparent casting aspersions about other editors. Beijing has blocked robust, long-term international field investigations and refused to allow a laboratory audit, which could bring clarity, and been reticent to share details and data around domestic research to uncover the cause.[3] I am telling you again, be mindful of the civility policy and proper ways to reach consensus. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
What you believe doesn't matter; what I believe doesn't matter. But what is in reliable source does matter. If you personally believe there is evidence of "malfeasance in the laboratory" get your evidence together and published in RS, then come back. Until then we must rely on reliable sources designating this supposition as conspiratorial thinking. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
"There can't have been a murder because we haven't found the murder weapon... oh, by the way, we haven't searched the suspect's house" PieLover3141592654 (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
That's a seriously poor analogy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Good analogy but I would rather say that there can't be a conviction of a murder suspect without proper evidence in a trial. That doesn't mean the murder suspect didn't commit the murder. But it doesn't mean it did it either. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Neither are the CIA, SIS or DGSE, why would we? Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a huge side show. The biggest reason for why the DoE and FBI are not prominently featured in the lead is that this is not the "United States of Encyclopediaca". It is the English language Wikipedia. It's meant to have a global overall 50,000ft view, not have any US-centric biases. Thrusting the input of the DoE and FBI above all other nations' agencies would be improper. And including all of them would be a coat rack. Hence, we defer to the body for such a level of detail.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. This is US-centric and doesn't belong in the lead. Andre🚐 02:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about the DoE but the FBI is a worldwide recognized agency even by regular people. Even in Latin America people likely know what is the FBI and don't know what their local intelligence agency is called. Therefore, I think that what the FBI thinks about covid is notable in a global scale. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
This argument would make sense if the opinions of the DoE and FBI were only covered in the US press. But they've been reported around the world. A recent paper in the highly reputable BMJ ("Did covid-19 come from a lab leak in China?", BMJ 2023; 382 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p1556 Published 10 July 2023) summarises the state of the debate as follows:
the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer. [...]
Many US federal departments have conducted their own separate investigations and have come to unclear and conflicting conclusions. The Energy Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation both lean towards a laboratory leak as being most reasonable—FBI director Christopher Wray made headlines in March by saying he personally thinks a laboratory origin is more likely. Five other US intelligence agencies, however, concluded that natural transmission is more likely. The Central Intelligence Agency has abstained from making even a low confidence judgement, given the lack of evidence. [...]
What is the scientific consensus as it stands? Many virologists, epidemiologists, and other infectious disease experts still say that all available evidence points to SARS-COV-2 spilling over to humans from an animal host, most likely at a wet market in Wuhan.
I think this would be a good model to follow. Regards, Andreas JN466 05:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
So the point (from the overall piece) is that LL fans thought this declassified material would be the 'big reveal' but it disclosed the US had absolutely nothing. We already say as much at some length. LL fans were upset. Teasing out the last, lowest-possible remaining claim that LL fans have glommed on to (this LL is not impossible) and elevating it into the lede would be undue/fringe. Bon courage (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The US intelligence agency assessments feature prominently in RS news coverage on this topic around the world.
To Bon Courage's point, whether or not 'LL fans' were disappointed isn't relevant. We should just put in a neutrally worded summary of what the declassified report says. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
It is relevant because it's covered in RS, as is how they reacted to their disappointment by pivoting to blame the US intelligence services of conspiring in cahoots with the Chinese. It's exactly the kind of secondary knowledge Wikipedia values. That BMJ feature spends more time talking about the Chinese CDC's stance, yet there is no push to cover that material. Elevating one selected sub-aspect of a sub-aspect to the lede would be classic POV. Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
But with all due respect, how were the western intelligence agencies or the WHO supposed to gather any conclusive evidence, given that the CCP refused any inspections whatsoever until after they had completely removed all equipment from and chemically completely sanitised their Wuhan laboratory, and if the CCP had nothing to hide, why would they go to such extreme lengths to avoid any informative outside inspection?
It doesn't remotely take a conspiracy-minded individual to find that to not make any logical sense and to be extremely suspicious, especially given the CCP's extensive track record regarding a complete disregard for human rights, such as by heading an extremely Orwellian surveillance state tyranny in which all political dissidents and three generations of all their family members are systematically thrown into several hundreds of absolutely nightmarish gulags. David A (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
That is the 'self-sealing' conspiracy theory (it must be so, that they can't find it confirms it). It's not relevant here: WP:NOTFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
That was not what I said, as you likely know. The suspicious part is the extremely blatant/well-documented active hiding of any potential evidence by one of the top five most ruthlessly inhumane, controlling, and imperialistic tyrannies on this planet. If there had been quick and open collaboration and sharing of information with the rest of this world regarding this issue, we would not be having this discussion. David A (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. This is going nowhere fast, closing early per WP:SNOW. Nothing has been presented to suggest that the consensus from the RM less than two months ago has changed. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC) (closed by non-admin page mover)


COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 Lab Leak Conspiracy Theory – It appears we are happy to call this a conspiracy theory again, Lets move it back to its original title. 2600:8804:6600:4:28B9:378E:A796:2520 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

A recently published well sourced new paper recently named it "COVID lab-leak conspiracy theory": https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-06-26/u-s-government-debunks-covid-lab-leak-conspiracy-theory-enraging-conspiracy-theorists 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The report that that article is based on says: "This report does not address the merits of the two most likely pandemic origins hypotheses, nor does it explore other biological facilities in Wuhan other than the WIV." and further states that "All agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection."[3] Rreagan007 (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I was demonstrating that its COMMONNAME is "COVID lab-leak conspiracy theory". Other people referring to varying hypothesis have not "named" it 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Even assuming that were true that it is the most common name, that title would violate WP:NPOV. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Why would we try to remain "neutral" in the title when we clearly show that it is a conspiracy in the article? 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Because the article doesn't say that. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The word conspiracy is used 47 times throughout the article. It is not isolated to one section describing what it used to be called. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The article clearly says its a conspiracy two times in the lead. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
No it doesn't. You are either confused about what the article actually says or you are making bad-faith arguments that misrepresent what the article actually says. It says that at the time it first arose, it was widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but then goes on to say that as time went by it began to be examined as a legitimate, though unlikely, origin hypothesis. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Where does it say that, could you show me a quote? "Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspirary theories." is quite clear. I dont see "at the time". 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I have already quoted you the article previously, and yet you persist with your misrepresentations. I try to assume good faith, but at a certain point I will no longer waste my time engaging with you. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose That it is unlikely does not necessarily make it a conspiracy. And WP:COMMONNAME O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a credible theory albeit unlikely. It has no supporting evidence, the preponderance of such events are cross-infections from the wild, but lab leaks have indeed occurred in the best run labs. The "conspiracy" bit is that (a) China created it deliberately to bring about the downfall of the US -or- (b) that a US general attending a conference in Wuhan brought it along deliberately to bring about the downfall of China. Thankfully neither fantasy gets much air time in the article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. We just had a RM discussion on this article title 6 weeks ago. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
If the consensus of scientists is that it's a conspiracy theory, and we call it a conspiracy theory in the the article, shouldn't we title it a conspiracy theory? 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
That's not what the article says. "After May 2021, some media organizations softened previous language that described the laboratory leak theory as "debunked" or a "conspiracy theory". However, the prevailing scientific view remained that while an accidental leak was possible, it was highly unlikely." Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This is what the Article says: "Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspirary theories." and also: "Scientists and media outlets widely dismissed it as a conspiracy theory." 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
You are taking things out of context and misrepresenting what the article actually says. I have already pointed this out to you, and I am starting to think that you are just trolling at this point. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree, this looks like it's all a big WP:POINT. Bon courage (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The issue is what "it" is. There is (1) a prior possibility "it came from a lab" onto which has been grafted (2) a galaxy of conspiracy theories. This article is a composite of 1 & 2. Bon courage (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia article clearly says that ideas that it came from a lab "is informed by racist undercurrents, and has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment." 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Wrong. It says "The lab leak theory is informed by racist undercurrents". That "theory" is the mishmash of concepts I referred to above. Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
What you referred to "(1) a prior possibility "it came from a lab" " is clearly explained to be the ideas of a racist person. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
That is not what it says. WP:CIR. Bon courage (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Please read paragraph two of the article: Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspirary theories. Central to many is a misplaced suspicion about the proximity of the outbreak to a virology institute that studies coronaviruses, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Most large Chinese cities have laboratories which study coronaviruses, and virus outbreaks typically begin in rural areas, but are first noticed in large cities. If a coronavirus outbreak occurs in China, there is a high likelihood it will occur near a large city and therefore near a laboratory studying coronaviruses. The idea of a leak at the WIV also gained support due to secrecy during the Chinese government's response. The lab leak theory is informed by racist undercurrents, and has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Exactly what? It says the lab leak is a racist conspiracy. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

First paragraph

If someone has a proposal to improve the article, please provide it in a new section together with supporting reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

The first paragraph seems to be written purely to influence the reader that the lab leak theory has no credibility. It has no details about lab work that was taking place. Or that the intermediate host could be a lab animal. 2600:8804:6600:4:B0A0:B425:2586:AB8A (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia follows reliable sources? Bon courage (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
That's because it doesn't. For the lab leak to have occurred SARS-CoV-2 would have to have been there in the first place and there is zero evidence of that ever being the case. Particular politicians, who engage in deranged conspiracies, jumping up and down about gain of function and then getting their simps in various bureaucracies to go along with it because of funding does not make it so. TarnishedPathtalk 00:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
If you check the talk page you will find there are some editors who go out of their way to ridicule the lab leak theory even when given reliable sources that both theories (the other one being zoonosis) are plausible. I don't think such behavior is according to the WP:NPOV policy. To be honest I would like to stop paying mind to this page because how toxic things can become but there needs to be voices of more reason. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Claiming you are the voice of reason and editors here are toxic is a clear WP:PA. Please take your attacks to a forum. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I said voices of reason not voice of reason. Try reading my comment again. Besides, I said "how toxic things can become". Also, I did not name any specific editor so it is not a "personal" attack. It is just a statement of how things are. Anyone can check the talk page to verify. Or I can submit diffs on demand. Therefore I would like you to not cast aspersions about me. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Then don't cast aspersions of other editors. These kinds of general insults posted by editors who fail to get consensus for their views is tiresome. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@Objective3000 Again, read and analyze my comment. You are accusing me of casting aspersions. Either walk back your comment or place my relevant quoted comments in my talk page to be discussed. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
If you can't understand why most of us heavily deprioritise the opinions of domestic police and nuclear scientists over those of virologists and epidemiologists, in regards to this subject, I suggest you go and take a good, long, hard read of WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. When you're done, go back and re-read those wiki policies a few dozen times. TarnishedPathtalk 01:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The statement, "Particular politicians, who engage in deranged conspiracies, jumping up and down about gain of function and then getting their simps in various bureaucracies to go along with it because of funding does not make it so. seems to be not only a political statement but also goes a bit into WP:FORUM territory. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
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.

Most ancestral genome found in presence of cell line DNA used for synthetic virus production

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A preprint written by highly renowned scientists found the thus far most ancestral SARS-CoV-2 genome in a sample which contained also DNA from Vero cell lines, which the Wuhan Institute of Virology planned to use and used in the past to make synthetic viruses (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1330800/v1). Sequencing took place a Sangon Biotech, a company mentioned in the DEFUSE proposal in which virologists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology planned to conduct experiments with synthetic bat coronaviruses with added furin cleavage sites https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-proposal. Attempts to delete the respective files from NIH servers are documented (https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1491297779855278082). Vbruttel (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable sources, useless for Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Your comment indicates that you do not understand how the scientific reviewing process works. Preprints are uploaded to servers and then sent to journals, which, if the preprint concerns virology, will send it to usually 3 anonymous virologists for reviewing. Any of them can prevent a preprint, which in this case suggests that virologists could be responsible for a pandemic that killed 26 million, from being published, and do so completely anonymously. I know from personal experience that the publication of preprints can be prevented by journals (also dependent on chinese scientists and money) or reviewers without any specific reasons for very long times. There is evidence that virologists such as Kristian Andersen planned to screen (=censor) bioRxiv for preprints suggesting SARS2 came from a lab. I have linked a statement from Prof. Jesse Bloom in which he explicitely describes attempts of censoring this preprint.
Likewise, the Wikipedia article on VW cheat devices accepts hundreds of sources that have not been approved by three anonymous VW engineers. This page accepts many peer-reviewed articles which are now proven to be dishonest (such as the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, from which all authors privately stated that a lab accident is plausible, highly likely ect.), and it cites virologists with proven undeclared conflicts of interest (such as Eddie Holmes, who uploaded a 99.5% SARS-CoV-2 protein identical sequence with WIV scientists in 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615898.1).
I have clearly stated that I have no conflicts of interest regarding SARS-CoV-2 on my author page.
Many of the articles you cite as reliable sources are written by authors who DECLARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (have been compensated for commenting of COVID, but not by whom). Or have not provided statements on conflicts of interest, which is also true for Wikipedia editors in charge here. You are even quoting reports authored by Peter Daszak as reliable sources, although he personally applied for a grant to work in Wuhan with synthetic bat coronaviruses that are enhanced for binding to human ACE2 and have added human-specific furin cleavage sites (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-proposal). Meanwhile, independent sources that systematically looked into this issue such as https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2 are not mentioned.
All the scientific evidence is clearly described in the preprint. I suggested to label it as a preprint, so that readers know that it has not been peer-reviewed. If you cannot provide scientifically valid counter-arguments, rejecting the inclusion of this key piece of evidence on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is censorship. Vbruttel (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
See WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
See top of this page:
2: There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS
WP:RS is exactly the issue here. Large parts of the article are a violation of WP:COISOURCE :
- citing a report headed by Peter Daszak, CEO of EcoHealth Alliance, which had received NIH funding to manipulate coronaviruses in Wuhan https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/daszak-conflict-of-interest-lancet-task-force-on-coronavirus-origins/
- citing Eddie Holmes, who closely collaborated with the WIV... Vbruttel (talk) 08:24, 27
Yeah, this is absolutely classic conspiracy theory talk. As the Lewandowsky[4] source says,,

Conspiracy theories, by contrast, not only exhibit incoherence but often directly challenge a genuine expert consensus as well. Indeed, the tenets of pseudoscience necessarily stand in conflict to actual science, and, therefore, almost invariably contradict a scientific consensus. This presents a problem for people who support a conspiracy theory or pseudoscience, because they must provide some reason to discount the position of domain experts. Experts are thus often assumed to be corrupted by financial or professional self-interest ... Conspiratorial rhetoric frequently celebrates dissent from an expert consensus as heroic, even if the dissenters have little or no scientific training ... By the same token, conspiratorial rhetoric frequently celebrates dissent from an expert consensus as heroic, even if the dissenters have little or no scientific training.

(my emphasis) Bon courage (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no consensus that your experts are indeed experts. Come back when you've established that. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B571:340:4F65:976D (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This leads nowhere.
I (a scientist) keep providing references and specifically show how this page violates Wikipedia's policy regarding COIs and independent sources. You (anonymous) just keep coming back with the same invalidated statements (most scientists agree it was a zoonosis) and insults (conspiracy theorist...).
The zoonosis theory is full of incoherences (no intermediate species found, why Wuhan, why in 2019, how did a PangolinCoV RBD and a human-identical FCS end up in a bat CoV from 1500 km further south...).
The lab accident theory is coherend: WIV researchers did exactly what they planned to do in the 2018 DEFUSE proposal: collecting bat CoV samples fron S. China/Laos, adding a RBD with a high affinity for hACE and a human-identical FCS, and do all that at BSL2, where not even masks are mandated, which likely led to a scientist getting infected, like it has happened very often before. This is consistent with intelligence reports stating that FCS were added and naming Ben Hu as the first Covid patient, the Vero DNA in the most ancestral genome sample, and the high frequency of mutations in restriction sites Ben Hu had previously used for synthetic genome assembly.
The domain experts to judge this sort of evidence are bioengineers (like me, Prof. Kinney, Prof. Kamoun), not virologists, who hardly ever use such genetic tools, and many domain experts agree that this is highly plausible, while virologists IMO have not yet provided valid counterarguments. It is well documented that they suppress papers with opposing views from being published. I do not assume experts to be corrupted, the evidence in form of their private conversations proves that they have been misleading the public. Unlike conspiracy theorists, I do not get any benefits from bringing up this topic (I rather risked my reputation and career here, like whistleblowers do). I do not celebrate dissent, quite the opposite, I consider these virological bioengineers still colleagues, and am ashamed of the damage caused they caused, and that our community didn't warn about the risks involved here earlier. Vbruttel (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment on content not users, and do not dismiss users based on your perceived better qualifications than them, they may also be a scientist for all you know (and no, they are not required to out themselves). Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Most of what you are saying is original research. Basically, little to none of what you have offered is based on reliable sources. We don't use non peer reviewed papers or opinions of editors. And attacks against experts will not convince anyone here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
1) I am aware that this is non-peer-reviewed evidence, but as I have explained in detail above, there is strong evidence that the peer review process is dysfunctional in the covid origin question.
We have exclusively trusted priests and bishops to investigate child abuse in the catholic church for 200 years, we all know where this led. It is highly irrational to only accept evidence approved by 3 anonymous virologists, as it would be to only ask VW engineers about cheat devices or NSA employees about the NSA spying on Americans.
2) Most of the references listed in this page as reliable sources are also just not reliable sources:
- They cite news articles such as NBC, CNN
- They ignore that we know from historic examples (Sverdlovsk leak) that reports coming only from within the suspected country are not trustworthy.
- they are long refuted like Pekar 2022 and Worobey 2022:
(by https://zenodo.org/record/7016143#.Y2CCWOzMKu4, https://zenodo.org/record/7005332#.Y2CAFuzMKu4, https://zenodo.org/record/7169296#.Y2B92uzMKu4 yes, I know, preprints)
- They come from authors directly involved in research at the WIV such Holmes, see above Vbruttel (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
there is strong evidence that the peer review process is dysfunctional Then you need to convince Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) of that. We have rules, and we will not ignore them because someone wants us to. We get this special pleading all the time, from users who think InfoWars is reliable becuase it supports their opinion and from users who think Nature (journal) is not because it does not support their favorite pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I corrected your indentation. It looked as if you were responding to yourself.
I (a scientist) This is not how Wikipedia works: users chest-beating on Talk pages. If it were, Talk pages would be full of posturing impostors shouting "Oook! I am a scientist! Believe what I say! Oook!". Instead, you need to use valid reasoning based on published reliable sources.
absolutely classic conspiracy theory talk is a correct judgment of your reasoning. Poisoning the well is another way of putting it.
The zoonosis theory is full of incoherences This is also not how Wikipedia works. See WP:OR. Go publish your thoughts in a scientific journal and wait until you have convinced scientists, then we may be able to use it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was not chest-beating. I tried to point out that I am scientist, have discussed the topic with many colleagues, never saw that "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis" (quite the opposit), that there are polls indicating this may be false, and that there is no evidence to support the statement. For that, I was insulted as a conspiracy theorist.
- Your second statement is just another insult, for which you do not provide any evidence.
- This is what I am trying to do for months now, but many journals refuse to allow our preprint to be reviewed, and the one that accepted it now cannot find any virologists who would review it as their comments would be made public.
Your argument is non-sensical. It's like saying evidence that a religious group is covering up child abuse is invalid unless three anonymous representatives of that group have admitted doing so. Meanwhile, you constantly quote anything these people say despite proven conflicts of interest. Vbruttel (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a good point, wikipedia is well known for being a place for groundbreaking original research, compelling anecdotal evidence, and the righting of great acaedemic wrongs. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Are we really in "I can't get my paper published - there must be a conspiracy against me!" territory? The point is, Wikipedia is really just a reflection of the best, established, mainstream sources so if something's not in that, it's of no use. If that means Wikipedia is not The Truth™, that's too bad, but it's by design. Bon courage (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
So you have not even noticed that this entire thread is not about my own paper, but about one by Csabai and Solymosi? (I only brought up my case as it shows that the reviewing process is not reliable indicator when the scandal involves those doing the reviewing).
You censor one of the most important pieces of evidence from independent researchers that support the lab accident hypothesis, while citing a wild array of newspapers and opinion articles by scientists with proven conflicts of interest
(Andersen, Holmes, Daszak)?
In contrast, your behaviour in the CIA discussion also proves that you never provide arguments, but just shut down discussions as you please, or require rediculous hurdles (CIA must admit it) for evidence that does not align with your personal view. Vbruttel (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
We do not censor. If you have a problem with a source, take it to WP:RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This is not going anywhere. You are telling us to completely ignore our policies and guidelines. No. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
No, I am telling you that your guidelines regarding only allowing reviewed science may not lead to an objective assessment of the situation in cases where the group doing the reviewing is the one under suspicion.
And that your responses to criticism and refusal to assess the provided evidence remind me of the confirmation biases/einstellung effects I also had in the very first phase of this pandemic (I considered the idea that several Professors at Western Universities could privately agree something is highly likely but publish that it is wrong/ a conspiracy theory to be idiotic at best).
I have studied the topic of this page in great detail, and to me it seems that you ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines you apply to my sources and on
- which criteria must be met before something can be referred to as scientific concensus (most scientists agreee...)
- when outdated references containing disproven statements should be removed
- COIs and independent sources
in many other sections of the article. Thus, like many media outlets, IMO this Wikipedia page is currently highly misleading (which was actually brought to my attention by several fellow scientists). This is extremely dangerous, as it is an important source also for policy makers, which are thus not incentivised to introduce IMO urgently needed changes in biosafetly regulations (like a moratorium on Gain of Function research on potential human pathogens at Biosafety Level 2 (no masks mandated), as it was done in Wuhan).
If you are looking for IMO more objective analyses by non-virologists I reccomend the following:
- https://michaelweissman.substack.com/p/an-inconvenient-probability?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
-https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2 Vbruttel (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
We do not evaluate papers. We use secondary sources. You are not going to change our policies here. If you want to argue them, you are on the wrong page. Please read WP:IDHT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
this is just not true, see my comment below.
e.g. refs 169, 170 and 184 link to a preprints.
you also directly cite researchers with proven COIs such as Holmes. Vbruttel (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
These preprint refs are for historical info on how the leak theory originated. I believe the papers in links 169 and 170 were withdrawn, so they certainly are not cites for valid info. WP also has links to Mein Kampf -- not as a source of valid info, but for historical purposes.
O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
You really need to stop regarding refutations of your reasoning as insults. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I also think that some editors here have systematically been rude, hostile, and sweepingly offhandedly casually dismissive towards comparatively perfectly polite, respectful, and reasonable people in this talk page, which seems like a cheat tactic to shut down any opposing viewpoints rather than trying to be openminded regarding new information and responding to all of it point by point after properly evaluating it. David A (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Vbruttel is new and doesn't know the rules. We'll forgive their incivility for a time. WP:BITE O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
He has not been rude as far as I have noticed. He has tried to provide proper polite fact-based arguments. David A (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Preprints and Xwitter are self-published sources and may not be used. WP:SPS. As an encyclopedia, our job is to summarize reliable sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Your paper first needs to find a publisher out there before it can be used here. There is no way round that. Andreas JN466 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I have been trying to explain above that reviewed literature may not be indicative of a high quality source in a case where those doing the reviewing belong to the same group that is suspected to have caused this pandemic.
I also have given the example of Prof. Holmes, who is cited 7 times in this page (as a reliable source, once with direct quote from newspaper article), but did not declare in any of his publications that he himself had uploaded parts of a viral genome in 2018 together with WIV scientists that are 99.5% identical to SARS-CoV-2.
I can give you another example, reference 174. This article was accepted on the same day it was received, a time period way too short for thorough and independent review. A lab origin was declared to be a conspiracy theory in this article. In their private conversations, the authors state "we cannot rule out the possibility that it comes from a bat virus leaked out of a lab".
Reference 184 is also a pre-print. Many others are just opinion pieces or newspaper articles.
Based of Wiki COI, independency and WP:SPS I would estimate that more than 50% of all references would have to be removed from this page.
Meanwhile, none of the key pieces of molecular evidence for a lab accident such as the most ancestral SARS2 genome that was found with DNA from a lab cell line, my own preprint which was discussed in newspapers all over the world, or the finding of synthetic SARS2 spike coding plasmids in 2019 patient samples are mentioned (see talk on my user page for references).
I am new here, but to me this and the choice of words in many sentences does not indicate that the editors here are completely objective and unbiased. Is there any interest here in constructive criticism such as given above? Vbruttel (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
You keep repeating and repeating the same stuff in WP:WALLS. Then sprinkle in insults. We have responded to these. There really is no point in continuing to respond to the same stuff. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
So how does this work around here? David A seems to agree that these are valid arguments, you seem to not agree. There is a long list of truly fringe and long invalidated theories in this page, for which hardly any evidence exists, but my suggestions are just rejected although I am able to provide evidence such as sequencing files, expert opinions and articles?
Can one editor just reject all the criticisms I listed also regarding your use of references as invalid, and that's it? Is there a vote? Vbruttel (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it is at least two. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
One editor? Are you saying that 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:B571:340:4F65:976D, Bon Courage, Slatersteven, O3000, Hob Gadling, and Novem Linguae are one person? Didn’t know I was an admin. You will see an WP:RfC higher up the page. This is not a vote per se as WP is not a democracy. !votes are evaluated on their fit to WP policies and guidelines. Your arguments do not fit well, as has been explained. WP is not about truth. It is about verifiability and the policies for this are fairly strict. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thanks for this clarification. currently, my key questions for the RfC would be:
1) IMO group thinking and tribalism are often observed in public scandals. Should the otherwise well-justified exclusive focus of peer-reviewed research be reconsidered in the lab leak case, where the group suspected of being responsible for a public scandal is also responsible for peer reviewing?
2) can evidence indicating that peer-review processes were biased/ willfully manipulated be discussed?
3 do you consider articles reliable sources if
a) the majority of the authors have stated in private conversations to believe the opposit of what they have written in the article to be true/more likely?
b) some of the authors did not disclose significant conflicts of interest (such as proven collaborations with the research group suspected to be responsible for the outbreak).
4) I am well connected with many renownend scientists that disagree with the notion that a zoonotic event is the most plausible origin theory. Most of them are Professors at public universities or C level scientists/CEOs at successful biotech companies. Many are domain experts with regards to some COVID origin evidence such as epidemiologists, microbiologists, bioengineers or genetists, and have published articles or preprints on the issue (DRASTIC group, Paris group). The page currently does not list many of the key pieces of evidence that we have discussed internally and on which I (and I assume many of my colleagues, this can be clarified) have based my conclusion. However, it does list extremely fringe and non-sensical theories. If you conclude that we are not allowed to list what we consider key evidence as it may not be peer reviewed, would it at least be possible clarify that our conclusions are not based on those fringe theories that you have listed, but that WP policies currently do not allow us to list them? Vbruttel (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
That's not an WP:RfC. You could post questions at: [5]. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This is all venturing into the absurd. Elevating academic peer review as some kind of validation of truth? Clearly you have no idea what academic peer review is. Academic peer review does not double check the results of studies in any way, shape, or form, nor does it even claim to be an endorsement or validation of truth. And often times journal editors screen out studies based on the editor's political beliefs, thus there is no such thing as blind academic peer review. Having this page rely on academic peer reviewed newsletters is why it's in the backwards shape it's in and why it needs a complete overhaul. Almost all of you are very unfamiliar with academic peer review. Here's an article that offers an introduction on why academic peer review is literally nothing: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/lancet-had-to-do-one-of-the-biggest-retractions-in-modern-history-how-could-this-happen - 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:746B:BB04:DAC9:507D (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Straw man. Peer-review is not enough to make a source reliable for bio/medicine. Wikipedia is not interested in Truth™, but in reflecting accepted mainstream knowledge as published in reputable publications. Bon courage (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Reputable to who, you? All of the people I talk to in the professional world believe you are emphasizing and elevating the most unreliable publications and outright censoring the most reliable ones, so clearly there's an almost perfect disconnect between what you believe is reliable and reality. Is this why Wikipedia has lost so much relevance in recent years? - 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:4837:80DB:D0FF:574D (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Reputable to who See WP:RS and WP:RSP. If you think that a publication is reliable which is not regarded as such, go to the Talk pages of WP:RSP and argue your case. But you will need good reasoning instead of the empty rhetoric you used here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This Wikipedia 'losing relevancy' sour grape is something we've heard here from fringers for years, while in fact it seems otherwise for COVID-19. If sourcing rules had been relaxed for any of these COVID nonsenses (vaccine dangers, 5G causes COVID, ivermectin, etc. etc.) then Wikipedia really would be in trouble. Why not go over to Larry Sanger's place[6] and make an alt version of this page with The Truth™? Then you, and the professional people you talk to, can share that link while being untroubled with the irrelevant Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Any arguments which aren't WP:PA or WP:FRINGE? TarnishedPathtalk 03:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any arguments which aren't WP:FRINGE and which are based on wiki policy? TarnishedPathtalk 03:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
For the Feb. 2022 discussion of this preprint see: Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_11#antartic_soil fiveby(zero) 00:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Nice. The bulk of contributions to that discussion are from now blocked/banned editors mind. Bon courage (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thanks, very helpful to see what has already been discussed. will try to figure out why these are still preprints and have not been published. Vbruttel (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
A good example of The Telegraph as a junk source for this article, and why preprints would very rarely rise to the level of inclusion. All we've got is commentary from a couple of twitter threads, though Bloom seems "interested" in the paper and Andersen strongly disagreeing with the conclusions, both seem to be saying this is a very messy contamination and difficult or impossible to interpret. But i would need someone such as Shibbolethink to tell me if my reading is correct (and he is off drilling holes in people's heads.) The process of peer review is not perfect, but arguing that here as a means of including this content will go nowhere. In the end we would need to have some commentary on these preprints which everyone could agree is trustworthy enough to ensure we aren't misleading readers, and we are very far from having that available. fiveby(zero) 15:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ Pezenik, Sasha (13 Sep 2023). "CIA 'looking into' allegations connected to COVID-19 origins". ABC News. Retrieved 15 Sep 2023.
  2. ^ Bristow, Michael (18 Nov 2022). "China repression: The families who have left loved ones behind". BBC. Retrieved 28 Sep 2023.
  3. ^ McCarthy, Simone (3 Mar 2023). "US agency assessment backing Covid lab leak theory raises more questions than answers – and backlash from China". CNN. Retrieved 28 Sep 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_28&oldid=1178700119"