Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Incorrect to call lab leak theory a claim

The second sentence of the article states that the lab leak theory is a controversial claim. There is no basis for calling the lab leak theory a claim and therefore this sentence needs to be struck. The claim description is in direct contradiction with the first sentence that describes the lab leak theory as a hypothesis or theory. The hypothesis or theory position is not controversial and is backed up with evidence. The second sentence reads as a subtle rhetorical device by inserting the word claim since claim can be paired with the word controversial whereas theory or hypothesis cannot. Since the position that the lab leak theory is a claim is not supported with evidence and the phrase “claim is controversial” reads as rhetorical slight-of-hand, this sentence needs to be deleted. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:42B:C74C:7EE0:D122 (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. From the first ref, PMID:38603006 (my underlining):

Individuals may learn about the origins of COVID-19 through exposure to stories that communicate either what most scientists believe (i.e., zoonotic transmission) or through exposure to conspiratorial claims (e.g., the virus was created in a research laboratory in China).

Perhaps Wikipedia should be calling them "conspiratorial claims" too, to cleave to the source better? Bon courage (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

How individuals learn about this subject is off topic to the article. Article is about the lab leak theory, not whether conspiracy theories are controversial. When smart people read this article the credibility is reduced since the subtle slide from "theory" in the first sentence to "claim" in the second sentence appears as a device to add the word "controversial" which the theory is not. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:A079:D510:B5BC:DEB1 (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

But some parts of it are, which is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It certainly was a controversial claim, as per the then president's repeated use of anti-Chinese rhetoric (such as "Kung flu") and claims he had docs supporting the origin from a Chinese lab. This resulted in violence against Asians. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

And is the Chinese version (i.e. that American agents came over with SARS-CoV2 to release it during the Military Games) non-controversial? Incidentally, this article really needs more coverage of the Chinese version of this "theory". Bon courage (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

They infiltrated the Wuhan lab and released it on purpose? Senorangel (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No, a lab is the epicentre in the Western LL mythos; in the Chinese mythos "the virus could have been deliberately engineered in the United States and released as an act of sabotage by an American undercover agent during the military games". Science places the epicentre at the wet market. PMID:37697176 Bon courage (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the theory, not the claim. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:A079:D510:B5BC:DEB1 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That is semantics. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "claim" and "theory". Claim is off topic. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:A079:D510:B5BC:DEB1 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there, is not a theory just a claim someone has made? Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a theory that some have claimed to be a fact as opposed to theoretical. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of the term "evidence" for each theory.

The article claims "There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic" but at the same time: "Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals". This seems completely and obviously inconsistent. Sure no database has ever shown a SARS2 existing in a lab prior to the pandemic - although given that nobody has actually looked that's not really saying a lot. But likewise no animal has ever tested positive for SARS2 prior to human transmission either. Overall there is no hard evidence for either theory, but considerably more circumstantial evidence for a lab leak scenario. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not claiming no one has ever worked on related research, only that there is no evidence of an actual copy of the virus in the possession of any lab before the pandemic. Senorangel (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Or of a plausible ancestor virus. Bon courage (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

And there is no evidence of SAR2 being in any animals before the pandemic either. So why do we have "Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals". There's as much evidence that it was in a lab as there is for that. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

So why do we have "Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals" Because that's what the studies say, as cited in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This should be changed to "studies suggest" rather than "available evidence suggests" then. As there is significantly more evidence for a lab leak than zoonosis. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Follow the sources. By them there is no evidence for LL (either in a Chinese or American lab), but abundant evidence for zoonotic origin at the Wuhan wet market. Bon courage (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That's objectively and obviously incorrect though isn't it? This page wouldn't exist if there was no evidence at all for a lab leak. The FBI wouldn't conclude a lab leak is more probable if there was no evidence for it. There is at least some evidence for both theories. 185.15.66.47 (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes some, some is not most. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like an odd argument. Wikipedia has articles for many things which have no evidence, like time cube, phantom time hypothesis, and chemtrails. And so here. See for example PMID:3358630, which is cited:

Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory.

Speculation on social media does not count as "scientific evidence", as this source delineates. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No mention of the 2023 Department of Energy report /No longer fringe theory

In 2023 the US Department of Energy concluded Covid 19 likely came from a lab in Wuhan. This means the lab leak theory is no longer a fringe theory, and in fact this report by the US DOE seems to be the most recent research of credibility that has been done on the virus' origin. The "consensus" that the virus came from a market comes from research that came out before DOE investigation. This isn't 100% confirmation of the veracity of the lab leak theory but this report should definitely be stated in the head of this article and mentioned further in the body and aspects of it being an unrespected theory should be reduced. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It is mentioned, and has been discussed at (extreme) length on this Talk page. Basically Wikipedia's not going to be over-emphasizing this, and what we have is about right. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You say "we" like there is some "Grand Council of Lab Leak Theory" that is in charge of the article. This is Wikipedia, everyone gets to input their opinion and consensus can change. The DOE study is in every way a reliable report and one of the most current bits of research that has been on the Virus' origin, and it absolutely deserves a mention in the head. Secondly it seems to me you need to slow your role in trying to control what goes into this topic. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's less than a year since a ginormous RfC on exactly this.[1] and we have better sources now even than then. The WP:BESTSOURCES are describing LL as racism-fuelled political theatre contributing to the anti-science movement (mostly in the US). Wikipedia just has to follow such quality sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with an anti-science movement. The United States Department of Energy has many of the most accomplished and well respected scientists in the world. Stop trying to drift away the topic into something it's not. This is simply about mentioning the DOE study in the heading and giving it more credence in the article which it absolutely should have. Again neutral point of view is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, not one point of view. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That was settled several months ago in an enormous RfC with 60 participating editors and 200 comments. Trying to re-litigate that, especially given the DOE source is now fading into the past, would probably count as WP:DE. You are aware this is a WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The responsibilities under the DOE intelligence arm are related to nuclear power and the protection of US energy assets and information, not medical investigations. As Bon courage says, there was a massive discussion on the DOE report resulting in a clear cut conclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We do metion it, and we had an RFC on it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, where do we call it a fringe theory? Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. USA nuclear scientists are not a very credible source on COVID-19 origins. We have other very credible sources that we can and do use instead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the DOE does not only run only nuclear labs. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is one of the DOE's national security laboratories with a significant focus on biosafety and biosecurity. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is another DOE lab involved in biosafety and biosecurity. In addition to the LLNL and LANL labs, there is also the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, all of which are tasked with conducting biosciences research. The DOE is the most aptly qualified federal agency on Covid origins, as well Covid treatments. The DOE's supercomputing resources aided in vaccine development. 103.164.118.54 (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Should probably put a link to this at the top of the article so the argument that DOE has no expertise stops being made. I think the reason the DOE opinion is not much discussed in the article is that, as multiple sources allude to, there is not a lot to say. We can speculate about what evidence they may have had, but other than that what is there to include beyond the content already in the article? fiveby(zero) 17:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

DOE used to have some expertise in genomics. GenBank originated there, in 1982. Soon after the start of the Human Genome Project, GenBank went to the then pretty new NCBI. How many workers went along with the move, I don't know at all. After the atomic bombs in Japan, studies of the effects of radiation were done at the then AEC, which then later was renamed to DOE. It isn't that DOE has no expertise, but just not especially more than any other labs. Gah4 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree that the failure to mention in the introduction the DoE position, or the FBI position - that Covid likely originated via a lab leak in Wuhan - is a major flaw in the page. The Introduction currently reads like the case for zoonosis, and is not an impartial of NPOV assessment of the current science on the subject - nor indeed where the science has been for the last 2 years at least. It should be fixed ASAP. Fig (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That is because that is what most medical experts say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And we do mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Please paste the text from the introduction where you think the DoE and FBI are mentioned. Are you looking at an old cached copy? I've triple-checked and it isn't in my copy. As for "The medical experts" - they have a range of views, and a fair number (still a minority, sure, but growing number) think lab-leak is most likely. In my experience an easy majority of scientists in the bio-sciences now consider lab-leak to be both possible and plausible, though by about 2:1 they still think zoonosis is most likely. Fig (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

United States Department of Energy is mentioned in one paragraph and two references. Seems enough for me. Gah4 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The lede is only repeats important parts of our article (read wp:lede) it is not a newspaper-style leder. So we only put in it what the bulk of relevant experts say, not just the opinions of one or two US government agencies (who are not even the only government in the world, nor the only 2 intelligence agencies in the USA). No if you have a source that says most scientists do not think it was of a natural origin please produce it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've never said most scientists do not think it was of a natural origin - in fact I very clearly said the opposite. Please read more carefully in future. Fig (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

But that is what we need to make the change, your wp:or of what you think scientists think is not enough, you need RS supporting your veiw. Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. And this sentence citing an unrelated article is misleading: "In the intelligence community, 'low confidence' means the information is sourced to low-quality or otherwise untrustworthy sources." The crucial fact, left out of this article, is that while the DOE considered the sources to be low confidence, they still concluded that a lab leak was the most likely cause. I guess the zoonotic theory had even lower quality sources. And obviously the reason the DOE's report is so significant vs. the scientific consensus is only the DOE has access to classified information. In fact, the report itself is classified. Fnordware (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess the zoonotic theory had even lower quality sources You are assuming that the people in the DOE who wrote this are competent (for virology), honest, and have no ideology. But it is literally part of the government of a country, and as you say, uses classified information, refuting at least two of those properties. Science can never be based on classified information, and your assumption and conclusion are WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Whatever you think of the DOE and US government, surely their conclusions should be highlighted in the article. The article need not and should not state if the DOE's report is accurate, but should clearly describe its conclusion. Whether or not COVID came out of a lab is not a scientific question so much as a forensic one, so having access to whatever classified information is a big deal, making it more notable. Fnordware (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You were trying to insert your opinion ("I guess"). Do not pretend that I am the one who tried that. See WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested that the article should speculate as to why to DOE thought a lab leak was more credible than zoonotic origin, although I did take the liberty to do so in my comment, yes. Fnordware (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

sounds like a few editors here think the prior RFC results aren't reflective of their view of the material. But I have yet to see a substantial secondary source presented which corroborates this viewpoint. WIthout substantial sourcing showing that the view of the experts has actually changed, this is just more of the same original research/editor opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Quite so, and more recently the highest quality sources are unequivocal. doi:10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.07.016 for example calls LL "simply wrong". There was an extensive RfC on how to deal with US intelligence material and the article duly reflects that. That material is even less relevant now than when that RfC was held. As ever, Wikipedia leans on the WP:BESTSOURCES and if those don't support editors' favoured views it's not a problem Wikipedia can fix. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The Lancet is not a dispassionate observer on this issue - it is itself the prime origin of the narrative that the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory", and under controversial editor Richard Horton has spent an extraordinary amount of time promoting that amount with the views and output of a Wuhan lab funder, Peter Daszak (e.g: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656 ).

The incredibly dismissive, and frankly rather childish language in that most recent - and notably anonymous - opinion slot is un-scientific and contrasts very strongly with more mature and measured opinion pieces in other leading medical journals. Fig (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Lots of conspiracist musing there, but The Lancet Microbe is not the same as The Lancet and has different editors in any case. If you want further up-to-date science maybe check-out PMID:39087765. In short LL has become part of an anti-science agenda tangled up with politics, nationalism and racism. Wikipedia will be reflecting that reality, based on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I have seen that sort of logic before: "this is not a reliable source for contradicting my opinion because they have contradicted my opinion". Still funny even if I have heard it dozens of times. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

We had an RFC on it and the consensus was that it would be undue to include in the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 06:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

New Cell paper

The new Cell study [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] definitively proves COVID-19 originated from wildlife, via raccoon dogs at the Wuhan market, and exposes the lab leak theory as a racist conspiracy aimed at blaming the scientific community, scaremongering about gain of function research and vilifying Chinese people. The evidence is conclusive, and it’s essential we update this article now to reflect this consensus and eliminate any mention of lab leak claims as serious science. There are a lot of papers in the top science journals dispelling the myth that this virus 'leaked' from a lab GoF experiment via an infected lab worker. It's molecularly impossible. 103.120.115.2 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it "definitively proves" it, but it moves the science closer to certainty. The thing is though, this new research is really about the (actual) origin of SCV2, and does not bother with any nonsense about lab leaks. We'd really need some decent secondary source (i.e. not just news) making the connection for it to be worth mentioning here. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this looks like synthesis, we can't say it has been proven until RS say so. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed if it did say "proved", we would immediately have to tag it as pseudoscience. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

No it's just the latest red herring pumped out to keep everyone's scent off the trail. The lab leak is all but proven. Scientists initial reaction to COVID was the Furin Cleavage Site looked inserted. And since then we've learned that Ecohealth Alliance had an interest in inserting cleavage sites into Coronaviruses.

That likelihood that that is a coincidence is very close to zero. 212.58.121.54 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Your belief is bolstered by rumours spread by conspiracy theorists, but it is still a belief. Wikipedia prefers reliable sources instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not a belief. We have factual and reliable reliable FOI'd sources showing scientists initial reaction to the sequence...

"I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to nCoV where you insert exactly 4 amino acids 12 nucleotide that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function—that and you don’t change any other amino acid in S2? I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature."

The DEFUSE proposal was a factual and reliable source...

"We will analyze all SARSr-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential furin cleavage sites’””°. SARSrCoV S with mismatches in proteolytic cleavage sites can be activated by exogenous trypsin or cathepsin L. Where clear mismatches occur, we will introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in Vero cells and HAE cultures."

It doesn't take much theorising to put those 2 things together. This is damning evidence supporting the lab leak and should be highlighted in the article. 212.58.121.54 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"doesn't take much theorising" ← just the classic conspiracy theorising that multiple sources detail. Scientists considered LL; scientists changed their mind in the light of evidence; science moves on. Wikipedia reflects that as relayed in the best quality sources. Meanwhile both the US and Chinese versions of LL have become calcified into the racist/conspiracists tropes among the believers in their respective nations. We reflect what sources say about that too. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

No they didn't change their mind in light of evidence. They have offered no plausible reason for changing their mind so dramatically. 212.58.121.54 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there any point to this? There are plenty of reliable sources setting out what happened and Wikipedia relays them. This is WP:NOTAFORUM for airing conspiracy theories. Bon courage (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

My point was here in case you missed it... "This is damning evidence supporting the lab leak and should be highlighted in the article" 212.58.121.54 (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it's just LL conspiracist lore, unless of course you have some good RS (of equivalent quality to the sources we already use) stating otherwise. Scientists make mistakes and change their minds all the time. It's called science. For LL however, in contrast ...

While the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear that any can be sufficiently falsified to placate lab leak supporters, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking.

We make this point already. Bon courage (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Again in what way is a FOI release lacking in quality? 212.58.121.54 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I struggle to understand how the theory that a virus leaking from a lab specializing in gain of function virus research with international government funding is somehow more racist and vilifying of the people of China than the theory that it leaked out of a filthy wet market selling all variety of esoteric wild animal meats. "Chinese people spread the virus because they eat raccoons and bats" is perfectly acceptable for polite society but "Transnational conglomerates were not transparent about the research they were funding" is a racist attack on the Han people? I'm not even trying to relitigate the page's claims against the theory, I'm just dubious of how the race angle is being leveraged, especially considering the fact that the Western notion of the Chinese eating dogs et. al has always been commonly understood as "racist stereotypes 101". 2601:246:4A80:FE0:BC75:12E7:5EF6:3BC7 (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, and this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand this and appreciate the immediate edit ban, but reliable sources are privileged in cases of reporting material fact, not opinions or moralizing:

such narratives were often supported using "racist tropes that suggest that epidemiological, genetic, or other scientific data had been purposefully withheld or altered to obscure the origin of the virus".[19] David Gorski refers to "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government".[23] The use of xenophobic rhetoric also caused a rise in anti-Chinese sentiment.

The wiki page simply parrots this as definitive reality, but how is this a remotely logical conclusion? How is it racist to suggest that a government altered scientific data? Is scientific integrity an inherent ethnic/cultural trait of the Chinese? Both of these sources, Gorkin and Garry, are biologists -- not journalists or post-structural theorists. There is no reason to include these assertions except as a way to characterize calls for government transparency (both US AND China) as villainous based on fallatious personal opinions. If we must keep it, at the very least give some form of qualifying statement: "Some media outlets/biologists have characterized the claim as ____". This is a clear case of non-NPOV. 50.249.232.209 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The sentence after [23] is not controversial. But I believe the preceding sentences should be toned down or need to find better sources for support. Senorangel (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, no one is doubting there was xenophobic rhetoric, though including it here makes it seem like the lab leak theory was the primary mover of said xenophobia. Personally, i would remove any mention of xenophobia here altogether -- criticizing an authoritarian unelected uniparty government is not xenophobia -- though I understand some mention might be obligatory. 2601:246:4A80:FE0:B026:EE09:813:9C05 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a major theme in the sources. Evil Yankees bringing their engineered virus to the Chinese motherland is kind of a xenophobic "theory" no? Bon courage (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're trying to be coy or I'm completely misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that the alleged xenophobia was anti-American? Neither the wiki page nor any of the citations nor the last 4 years of media coverage would lead anyone to that conclusion. 2601:246:4A80:FE0:8C71:9796:2BC1:3427 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

In China it was. The page has a US bias in that it's only really considering what the American conspiracists think – though to be fair that aspect has more coverage in the sources. Bon courage (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I taking crazy pills? That is not a conclusion that anyone reading the language of the article would come to. Have you ever once heard the term "xenophobic" referring to anti-American thought?

Regardless, even if someone were to make such an esoteric mental leap, this STILL would not qualify as "xenophobic". As was my original point, any "lab leak" theory, be it in the US or China, is a priori an accusation against a bureaucratic body – unless one is to assume the collective subconscious of the Chinese people conceives of the archetypal American ("Yankee") as an elite biomedical researcher/black operative executing a bioweapons attack on a geopolitical rival.

Are you understanding my reasoning here? Can we acknowledge that the reliable sources are not authorities on purely subjective arguments –especially when the argument is so fundamentally absurd that no one with an elementary understanding of political dynamics would organically adopt? The word xenophobic should appear in this article exactly 0 times unless prefaced by some kind of qualifier denoting it as an opinion. 2601:246:4A80:FE0:D51A:B88D:80AA:E4B9 (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The lab leak arguments are absurd yes, but there is plenty of RS commenting on them as a kind of psychosocial/political phenomenon, in which xenophobia is both an informing prejudice and.a result as people are stoked up. This expert assessment and analysis (knowledge) is exactly what Wikipedia deals in. In China the 'theory' is that US undercover agents brought an engineered virus to the 2019 Wuhan Military Games and released it there as an attack on China. We need to cover this; see PMID:37697176. There are also some American LL believers who put the blame on America itself for originating the virus (e.g. Jeffrey Sachs,who we mention). Bon courage (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The consensus among most lab leakers is that the U.S. was at the very least active in the research at the Wuhan lab if not instrumental. I've never heard an argument that doesn't include that detail. It has always been public knowledge that the NIH was funding the WIV from 2014-mid 2020. It requires a lot of willful ignorance to look at such a convoluted geopolitical theory which places a good deal of blame on the US and say "racially motivated".

What "expert" are you referring to? There is no such thing as an "authority" on issues like this. This is my point. The writer David Gorski of [23] is an oncologist! What more authority does he have than anyone to make assertions about sociopolitical phenomena? More than Jeffrey Sachs? The language of the wiki states that an uptick in anti-Chinese sentiment is a result of the lab leak theory in particular, something which has no basis whatsoever in any medicine or science — he is not speaking as an expert in that piece, he is just speaking as a person with an opinion. 2601:246:4A80:FE0:D51A:B88D:80AA:E4B9 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliably published WP:SECONDARY sources are the basis of Wikipedia, and the analysis and commentary they contain is the knowledge this Project exists to reflect. Since your contributions here are source-free I think this thread is heading nowhere. Perhaps somebody could close. Bon courage (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Here: https://nursingclio.org/2020/06/02/absolutely-disgusting-wet-markets-stigma-theory-and-xenophobia/

Written by UW Madison PhD in History of Medicine. Expert.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10120873/

Faculty from Dept of Psych at USF and Internal Med. at UChicago. Experts.

https://culanth.org/fieldsights/sinophobia-epidemics-and-interspecies-catastrophe

Professor of Medical Anthropology at St. Andrew's

Expert.

Apparently there is no clear consensus amongst medical experts as to whether or not one speculative hypothesis is more racist than the other one.

This wiki article is about a historical event, not the philosophical discourse surrounding its contribution to studies of human tribalism. If you want it to be about that, it needs to clarify that in its language. Mention of these conflicting viewpoints ought to be in the article and all assertions to the contrary to be likewise noted for their equally subjective nature. 2600:1008:B044:87A1:35C8:593C:DB7E:C80 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The first source is a blog; the others reprise the themes we already mention (racist inputs and racist outputs to LL). Yes, this article is about an event – but that event is the hatching and taking hold of irrational conspiracy/theories among sectors of the populations of various countries. Sources treat it as an interesting psychosocial phenomenon and a major example of conspiracist discourse, and so Wikipedia does too. The actual "event on the ground" is summed up pretty quickly in the WP:BESTSOURCES as somewhere between "simply wrong" and "zero evidence to support". So Wikipedia says that too. Bon courage (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"First source is a blog" Okay? So is Gorski [23], a blog with a whopping 229 shares on Facebook. It is "owned and operated" by a "non profit organization" that exists only in the form of a Wordpress page that hasn't been updated in more than a decade. There is no difference whatsoever in level of credibility or certifications of these two sources. One is mentioned as definitive, the other is not. Why?

2600:1008:B044:87A1:35C8:593C:DB7E:C80 (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SBM. Bon courage (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Self published, not peer reviewed. It's a blog.

You do not acknowledge the arguments of the other two sources. They are not in keeping with the claims of the page and from RS. None of the significant minority views in RS are treated with neutrality.

2600:1008:B044:87A1:35C8:593C:DB7E:C80 (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

They are "in keeping". It may be worth covering the adverse mental health impacts LL racism has had on ethnic Chinese in America though. This adds to, not contradicts, our article. We already cover the "Yellow Peril" sinophobia the third source mentions but again, this could be expanded. Bon courage (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

They are talking about the Sinophobia as a result of the wet market theory, not the lab leak. There is an argument against both.

But how could it be true that both contribute to a phobic hatred. It was either the wet market or the lab — at least one is true. If both theories are xenophobic i.e. not based in fact, then whichever ends up being true is xenophobic.

The only difference being that the wet market theory is very consistent with already long held stereotypes of the Chinese people and the idea of CCP backed scientists making bioweapons became a stereotype of the Chinese people (???) overnight by way of media proclamation.

Do you see now why I'm dubious of using the term here?

2601:246:4A80:FE0:82E:4439:9C90:AD5A (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

SARS-CoV-2 is Potentially a Bioweapon

Why have you added a link to the COVID-19 lab leak theory page pointing to Bioweapons as a conspiracy theory? This is the same denialist approach taken in the early days of the outbreak when any discussion of a lab origin was called a ‘conspiracy theory’. The fact is that there is no public information that conclusively proves any of the origin theories—natural, lab leak, or bioweapon—and worse, there is no effort to conduct an independent forensic investigation to find the truth. China and the US have deliberately politicized the issue, precluding any possibility that they will cooperate in an investigation, even though they have spent the last 20 years working together, searching for and experimenting with these pathogens. The Intelligence community states it does NOT know when or how SARS-CoV-2 started. Yet you proclaim without any basis that the suggestion that it is a bioweapon is a conspiracy theory? There is a well-documented conspiracy between the virologist community and the governments of the US and China to make the public believe the pandemic was an act of God (of natural origin) and that no humans are responsible for the deaths of possibly over 40 million people. These parties have worked to prevent any independent, comprehensive investigation and to limit the WHO’s investigation. Yet you do not call these efforts a conspiracy. By stating that any suggestion that the virus may be a bioweapon is a conspiracy theory, you do a disservice to your readers. The publicly available evidence supporting the development and release of SARS CoV-2 as a bioweapon is at least as compelling as any offered in support of any other options. Disparaging this possibility does not lead to truth. It only tries to smear and denigrate it as an alternative explanation which has as much and possibly more evidence to support it, than the alternative theories. Jamescjiii (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Because no one has provided any real evidance it was. Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based upon reliable secondary sources. You have not provided any. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2024

Under "Intelligence agencies" Paragraph 4 quoted as:

"In June 2023, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified their report on the virus' origins, in compliance with an Act of Congress compelling it to do so.[174] The report stated that while the lab leak theory could not be ruled out, the overall assessment of the National Intelligence Council and a majority of IC assets (with low confidence) was that the pandemic most likely began as a zoonotic event.[175][176] No evidence was found that SARS-CoV-2 or a progenitor virus existed in a laboratory, and there was no evidence of any biosafety incident.[17] Proponents of the lab leak hypothesis reacted by accusing the agencies of conspiring with the Chinese, or of being incompetent.[17] Covering the story for the Sydney Morning Herald, its science reporter Liam Mannix wrote that the US report marked the end of the lab leak case, and that it had ended "not with a bang, but a whimper".[17][176]"

Please change to:

"In June 2023, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified their report on the origins of COVID-19, in accordance with an Act of Congress. The report outlined two plausible hypotheses for the virus' origin: natural zoonotic spillover or a lab-related incident. Four intelligence elements and the National Intelligence Council assessed with low confidence that a natural spillover was more likely, while one agency leaned towards a laboratory incident with moderate confidence. The report acknowledged gaps in evidence and noted China's non-cooperation in further clarifying the virus' origins."

Reason: The original did not have the source of the report and did not fully capture the report's details. 97.91.54.115 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd sure like to link to the various ODNI document (4 total i think?) if they aren't already, but if i recall the June 2023 was the last (source says 4 pages), isn't this the first? (2 pages) fiveby(zero) 00:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can find on their site:

August 2021 https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf

June 2023 https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Report-on-Potential-Links-Between-the-Wuhan-Institute-of-Virology-and-the-Origins-of-COVID-19-20230623.pdf

and the latest one - https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf

I can't find anything related to another report that is declassified. 97.91.54.115 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

References

•  Not done Please establish consensus for such edits before using this template. The proposal loses information. Bon courage (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. Without the source, the original does not have adequate information and is misleading to the document source. 97.91.54.115 (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)