User talk:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak

accidental furin cleavage site from serial passage

Have there been any studies done to look at the possibilty that a FCS could have accidentally been developed durring unrelated serial passage expirements? 2603:800C:3101:D064:18A6:6458:7838:3B28 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence for a lab leak

In the unlikely event that the authors of this page are interested, the strong evidence for a lab leak can be found at [1] Most of the evidence quoted against a lab leak in this page is spurious. But this is not the place to discus that.

Incidentally, the latest dubious paper supporting a lab leak by Worobey et. al. "proves" that it did in fact start in the seafood market. You need to update your story!Tuntable (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Your own personal blog? With of course links to DRASTIC? And with the same kind of obvious misinterpretation that is explicitly discredited in reputable peer-reviewed journals (such as those cited on this very page - they are not hard to access or behind a paywall, so no excuse for missing them)? You've missed your appointment: April Fools is in two weeks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not helpful and childish. 2600:8804:6600:45:2918:2AB7:9BF0:437B (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The only unhelpful thing is pretending there is evidence for something when that evidence sums up to, as best summarised by others more qualified than me, "the coincidence that the virus was detected in a city with a virology lab". And Wikipedia is biased against coincidences and towards people who publish their research in high-quality publications (like topic specific peer-reviewed journals). A personal blog by a random person on the internet is simply nowhere near the requisite level, even less so when it makes basic errors and seems more an excuse for personal soapboxing (something which Wikipedia is not) than actual scientific discourse. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should have said that before making personal attacks? 2600:8804:6600:45:2918:2AB7:9BF0:437B (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What part of RC's comment is a personal attack? I don't see anything in their comment that describes the user in any way, only the content of their comment. This is precisely how the policies and guidelines would ask us to interact, and is well outside the bounds of a "personal attack" for that reason. One might have a cogent argument to say RC is not assuming good faith, but since OP (Tuntable) set the tone for this section with "In the unlikely event that the authors of this page are interested"... I would argue it's justifiable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

RandomCandian is belittling user Tuntable saying: "Obviously you can't distinguish a crap scientific paper from actual ones." This reflects poorly on The Cabal. You should stop using this "personal essay" as a bludgeon. 2600:8804:6600:45:2918:2AB7:9BF0:437B (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Research article in Science

26 Jul 2022 research article in Science: The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic

Key quote: "Our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic."

Authors:

• Michael Worobey, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona
• Joshua I. Levy, Department of Immunology and Microbiology, The Scripps Research Institute
• Lorena Malpica Serrano, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona
• Harry Feinstone, Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
• Jonathan E. Pekar, Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego
• Stephen A. Goldstein, Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine
• Angela L. Rasmussen, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, University of Saskatchewan
• Moritz U. G. Kraemer, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
• Chris Newman, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
• Marion P. G. Koopmans, Department of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Center Netherlands
• Marc A. Suchard, Department of Biostatistics, University of California Los Angeles
• Joel O. Wertheim, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego
• Philippe Lemey, Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, Rega Institute for Medical Research Belgium.
• David L. Robertson, University of Glasgow Center for Virus Research
• Robert F. Garry, Tulane University School of Medicine, Department of Microbiology and Immunology
• Edward C. Holmes, Sydney Institute for Infectious Diseases
• Andrew Rambaut, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh
• Kristian G. Andersen, Department of Immunology and Microbiology, The Scripps Research Institute

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You also might be interested in this: The rise and fall of the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Department of Energy assessment

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.amp.html 2A00:1370:8184:1CE9:E784:E0E4:EA4B:73F6 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Summary: USA's nuclear regulator changes its opinion on a virology topic, with "low confidence". –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The United States Department of Energy oversees a network of national laboratories and technical facilities dedicated to research and development. A key point of discussion is the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically whether it was most likely the result of a laboratory leak. The Department of Energy (DOE) has concluded that this scenario is plausible. The FBI reached a similar conclusion, though with "moderate confidence." However, the U.S. government has not yet reached a consensus on the precise origins of the pandemic. 2601:3C4:4300:9A0:4CF7:E635:7751:7B4C (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The FBI reached a similar conclusion, though with "moderate confidence." Summary: USA's police share an opinion on a virology topic. Next, perhaps we should ask virologists their opinion on a police topic such as kettling? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has significant expertise in biomedicine, particularly through the FBI Laboratory and the Hazardous Materials Response Unit (HMRU). The FBI Laboratory employs biochemistry and biology experts who handle cases involving DNA analysis, bioterrorism, and toxicological evidence. The HMRU specializes in responding to incidents with hazardous biological agents, supporting investigations related to pathogens and toxins. These units work closely with agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to enhance national preparedness against bioterrorism.

The FBI concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from a lab-related incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. This assessment, based on FBI intelligence and scientific analysis, aligns with findings from the US Department of Energy. 2601:3C4:4300:9A0:F5F6:8F3C:5B24:BA31 (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This essay does not belong on Wikipedia

"Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research." Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) 2601:3C4:4300:9A0:4CF7:E635:7751:7B4C (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This essay quotes secondary sources. Original research usually involves primary sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)