Jump to content

Talk:EcoHealth Alliance

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



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 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

[edit]

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

To add to article

[edit]

To add to this article: information about the recently released report "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence." Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so did EHA fund gain of funcition or NOT?

2 million dead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.142 (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The DARPA grant and EHA

[edit]

I propose that we move all the sentences referring to the DARPA grant and the WIV proposed experiments from the lead to the body. Also, let's try to stick to the better sources on this, instead of the intercept we can use the New York Times. Forich (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NYTs has proven to be a poor source on this topic. 2600:1700:8660:E180:4C13:7522:E1BB:55A0 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence for that claim? clpo13(talk) 22:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revelations of October 2021

[edit]

Is anyone maintaining this article? Why are these significant revelations not mentioned at all in the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FIXIT. — Shibbolethink ( ) 14:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Increased contact between humans and the animal species whose habitat is being destroyed has led to increases in zoonotic disease." needs citation.

I havent found anything scientific about this dubious hypothesis, it seems to be pure speculation (to justify research grant funding). Furthermore, the hypothesis that deforestation leads to more "human-animal contact" (which also needs explanation btw) is weak. 2A02:1210:2E1A:500:9D55:F429:7139:19D9 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]