This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
The Pekar et al (2022) paper " The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2" is online and published. I see that Alexbrn edited in favor of waiting for a MEDRS before using this source. I've been following the debate on twitter on how is this result impacting the consensus around the different origin hypotheses, and there is still controversy over this issue. A sidenote result is that Science is no longer opposing Nature in the way it handles origins' papers, by publishing Pekar it is implicitly approving the natural origin story. What is your take on how this will impact our coverage of SARS-CoV-2 origin here in Wikipedia? Forich ( talk) 21:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Alexbrn ( talk) 03:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)This data is almost impossible to align with the lab-leak hypothesis. You would have to believe that there were two lab-leak events, both of which promptly went to the Huanan market and spread the virus. That represents epic-level special pleading, and is not sound epidemiological reasoning. ¶ At this point the lab-leak hypothesis should be scientifically dead. The dominant hypothesis, that COVID resulted from zoonotic spillover events in the Huanan market, has now emerged as a fairly solid conclusion.
2600:8804:6600:45:8976:A77A:5C7A:FA16 ( talk) 16:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Founder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the host and producer of the popular weekly science podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, and the author of the NeuroLogicaBlog, a daily blog that covers news and issues in neuroscience, but also general science, scientific skepticism, philosophy of science, critical thinking, and the intersection of science with the media and society. Dr. Novella also has produced two courses with The Great Courses, and published a book on critical thinking - also called The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.
His academic peers, at least, wouldn't view him an authority on infectious disease, respiratory medicine, tropical medicine, or any other field relevant to our friends the viruses. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)His practice includes general neurology with a special interest in neuromuscular disease. His research interests include ALS, myasthenia gravis, neuropathy, and erythromelalgia.
2600:8804:6600:45:8976:A77A:5C7A:FA16 ( talk) 15:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)We queried the GISAID database (57), GenBank, and National Genomics Data Center of the China National Center for Bioinformatics (CNCB)
The first article acknowledges that "events upstream of the market ... remain obscure..." Those "events upstream" could include a scenario in which someone associated with the Virology Institute was unknowingly infected with the virus and carried it to the market while shopping.
Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 13:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The linked guideline ( WP:BIASED) explains that "reliable sources are not required to be … unbiased or objective." More at WP:RSP#GREL:There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles.
News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertiseand WP:NEWSORG (
Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics)).The discipline here is not "science." It's "virology." Hence, Bailey is not a subject-matter expert by any reasonable meaning of the term. In fact, what Bailey's history shows us is that he is likely very biased on this topic which has lots of political influence. He is a self-described libertarian [8] who has published books such as Ecoscam, and other pieces in which he espouses an unrestrained exploitation narrative supporting continued harvesting of Earth's natural resources, despite current scientific evidence supporting a continually decreasing reservoir of same. Since much of the zoonotic argument boils down to 'we are eroding natural ecology, causing increased interaction of animal virus reservoirs with humans, increasing the likelihood of zoonosis,' [9] [10] [11] [12] I would consider Bailey exactly the opposite of who we should be consulting on the likelihood of zoonosis.Ultimately, this debate back and forth is likely to go nowhere. If you want to use Bailey to contradict parts of this article, I suggest you take it up at WP:RSN, where I can promise I will make the same argument. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
There's no way in which the current section is "background". A mention of the Fort Detrick 2019 incident could go in the "prior lab leak" part of background. Everything else about it belongs in "China-US relations". Sennalen ( talk) 14:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The purpose of that section is to give an overview of known challenges involved in pathogen containment. It is not a place to insert new evidence about the origins of SARS Cov2. It is not a place for background on other conspiracy theories. Taking a section formed of peer-reviewed science and adding one claim about a conspiracy theory so "conspiracy theory" can be added to the section title is terribly transparent PoV pushing. Sennalen ( talk) 21:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
While a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle.(See WP:EDITWAR.) - Dervorguilla ( talk) 23:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:N "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability."
WP:SUMMARYSTYLE "Each subtopic article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in the parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article, and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles."
Articles that currently name zero references ... may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation thateach point is supported by some (unnamed) RS.
There is a reasonable expectation thateach and every one of those source additions is supported by some other unnamed reliable source citing the added source as background to this topic. (See WP:OR.)
Sennalen ( talk) 22:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Support all points. Some established authorities apparently would now concur that disseminating this information more broadly may encourage Beijing to be more forthcoming. Cf. "Study: Huanan Market Was 'Epicenter'", by science correspondent Ronald Bailey: "In June, the World Health Organization urged the Chinese government ... to allay speculations about lab leaks by being more forthcoming about the work on coronavirus viruses undertaken at the Wuhan Institute... The world is still waiting to hear from them." Not just conspiracy theorists: the world. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 13:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
That linked guideline ( WP:BIASED) says, "reliable sources are not required to be … unbiased or objective." So whether it's news or opinion, Bailey's article may well be a reliable source here. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 21:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles.
Lineage B has been the most common throughout the pandemic and includes all eleven sequenced genomes from humans directly associated with the Huanan market, including the earliest sampled genome, Wuhan/IPBCAMS-WH-01/2019, and the reference genome, Wuhan/Hu-1/2019 (hereafter ‘Hu-1’) (5), sampled on 24 and 26 December 2019, respectively. The earliest lineage A viruses, Wuhan/IME-WH01/2019 and Wuhan/WH04/2020, were sampled on 30 December 2019 and 5 January 2020, respectively." We do not have any samples earlier than PBCAMS-WH-01. And it's from the market. One could say there "may" have been earlier cases, but it is entirely speculation.Point 4 is contradicted by several of our sources, which describe serial passage as unlikely to the point of pseudoscience, and the others as entirely speculative with no evidence in support. Pseudoscience is a word often used to describe unproven theories with poor acceptance among relevant experts. (e.g. the moon landing hoax, bigfoot, etc) We do not have evidence of Bigfoot, we do not have evidence to disprove bigfoot. it's still pseudoscience. There's probably, honestly, more evidence for Bigfoot's existence than there is for the lab leak theory. It's a low bar.And, as an aside, this is edging towards "discussion of the topic" rather than "discussion of the article". What alterations to the article text would you suggest, @ Sennalen? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
the observation that the preponderance of early cases were linked to the Huanan market does not establish that the pandemic originated there.
What alterations to the article text would you suggest?— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I am perplexed by the claim that there is an attempt to entertain an opinion that experts take anything but a wet market origin of COVID-19 as likely. [16] If that's too dense for you, try the podcast with the author: [17] Does any legitimate expert still harbor doubts after this? I can't find them. I think the article should reflect that the study has been done and the results are just about as conclusive as you can get in science. jps ( talk) 22:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
. Removal of "legal" terminology from scientific papers is a feature of peer-review, it says, and NBD. Alexbrn ( talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Lab leak conspiracy theorists seem to be perseverating on how the word “dispositive,” which was apparently used in the preprints to describe this evidence but was removed from the final versions of the studies as published in Science.
Together, these analyses provide dispositive evidence for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 via the live wildlife trade and identify the Huanan market as the unambiguous epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, 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.
Collectively, these results provide incontrovertible evidence that there was a clear conduit, via susceptible live mammals, for the zoonotic emergence of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan market towards the end of 2019.
The sustained presence of a potential source of virus transmission into the human population in late 2019, plausibly from infected live mammals sold at the Huanan market, offers an explanation of our findings and the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
I'll just note that in the above exchange, the people arguing that the paper was less than conclusive did so on the basis of some contortions that did not deal substantively with the content that was linked. Who cares what word they decided upon? The paper speaks for itself as does the one on genetic lineages. What is left? This reminds me a lot of when the Berkeley Earth results came out and the people who did not expect that they would confirm anthropogenic climate change simply argued that it wasn't conclusive. Well, this is as good as science gets. If you don't recognize that, then what are we doing here? jps ( talk) 14:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
substitute certainty for likelihoodhits the nail on the head, and when people compromise on source quality to do it, that is PROFRINGE behavior. Sennalen ( talk) 17:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I recommend you stop your WP:ADVOCACY. I known not from whence it comes. jps ( talk) 12:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
offering a comprehensive overview of this whole sage, now that it's over:
This can usefully be used to accurify the article. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
In a real BSL-2+/3 ...Maybe that's why Canada doesn't have a historical record of serious lab leaks? - Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Let's get to the point, comrades: NEWSORG tells us that opinion pieces are rarely reliable for statements of fact. So we can't use Gorski's opinions to "accurify" this article (or any other). All we can do is present his viewpoint (in conjunction with, say, Bailey's; see discussion). - Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
English Wikipedia is implicitly acknowledging that these agencies are the real experts on global biolab security (versus "crankery"). They have trained staff who make their living investigating such matters. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 23:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Of the eight assembled teams, one (the FBI) leaned towards a lab leak… British intelligence agencies believe it is "feasible" that the virus began with a leak from a Chinese laboratory.
conspiracy theoristseight times! "What the conspiracy theorists are doing" is directly related to that topic.
directly related to the topic of the article. ( NOR.)
minor aspectsand
overall significanceto the topic. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
directly related to the topic of the article.
best respected and most authoritative reliable sources. ( NPOV#BESTSOURCES.) And SBM isn't really perceived as fitting in that category. Some likely reasons are listed at RS#SOURCETYPES:
controversial within the relevant field. None of its staff have ever published an academic journal article on infectious disease (or sociology, or psychology).
largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse. If you
try the libraryfor reputable journal articles, most academic librarians will tell you they've never heard of it. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list.
most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable.See WP:WAPO for those discussions. And our article does cite it 15 times. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 23:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
expert on cranks and crankery; there are domain experts, and nonexperts. "Dunking on cranks" cannot be done intelligently or with integrity without domain expertise, since any lies will contain elements of truth, and only an expert is qualified to sift through all claims and separate the true from the false. DFlhb ( talk) 14:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Gao et al. reported that there were no positive animal samples at the Huanan market. They further reported that there was no correlation between the locations of the animal sellers in the market or the locations with the highest densities of humans and the locations of the positive environmental samples in the market. Based on these findings, Gao et al suggested that the market “acted as an amplifier,” with infections being brought into the market by humans infected elsewhere.
End of lead:
Holmes is a co-author on both papers; the current phrasing strongly implies that he is a neutral expert. This should be either clarified, or another expert should be named here if any equivalent statements have been made. DFlhb ( talk) 15:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
These developments led virologist..., "these developments" refers to his own study)
This is out : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/ 2803:1800:510E:C5C7:18EE:639:2594:21AF ( talk) 16:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC) forgot to sign in Forich ( talk) 16:20, 7 October 2022 (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.
perhaps there is something interesting for wikipedian english editors here
the link for this is in this page https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/news/ec-republican-leaders-request-national-academy-of-medicine-investigate-ecohealth-alliance-president-peter-daszak-for-misconduct/ at the bottom "CLICK HERE to read the full letter to NAM Home Secretary Elena Fuentes-Afflick"
Vatadoshu french 08:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
on the page https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/news/ec-republican-leaders-request-national-academy-of-medicine-investigate-ecohealth-alliance-president-peter-daszak-for-misconduct/ there is another link interesting "CLICK HERE to read the Republican Leaders’ April 16, 2021 letter to Daszak." where it is said ""In 2020, Dr. Shi Zhengli of WIV published a genomic sequence for RaTG13. According to available information first published in 2016, RaTG13 is 96.2 percent similar to SARS-CoV- 2 and was gathered in 2012 from bat caves in the Yunnan Province, then. This sequence is the most similar to SARS-CoV2 that is publicly known. " . And another source https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09469
says it is the closest too. So the closest covid virus was created in 2016 in wuhan. It is not politic it is science. Science history. Vatadoshu french 09:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
note that politiciens have references in there letters too so you could just take sentences and verify with the references of the letters. sentences seems to have good references. I have verified some sentence with the references and sentences does not seems to lie. there is this too: http://www.normalesup.org/~vorgogoz/conferences/21-04-controversies- Vatadoshu french 10:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
http://www.normalesup.org/~vorgogoz/conferences/21-04-controversies-SARS-CoV-2-part3-Mojiang-pneumonia.pdf Vatadoshu french 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Garry (2022) says Harrison and Sachs cite work on rat ENaC from UNC(3,4) and suggest that the UNC and WIV coronavirologists may have mimicked human ENaC FCS to make SARS-CoV-2 more infectious for lung epithelia
. Garry then inmediately counters this by saying that four extra aminoacids, not eight, were added, and other technical explanations that debunk the hyphotesis. My questions is if all of this already covered in this entry or is it worthy of mentioning?
Forich (
talk) 20:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The Fort Detrick theory is called a conspiracy theory however the term is not used for the rest of the article despite the introduction saying the Chinese lab leak theory has no supporting evidence. I propose adding the word conspiracy to the introduction of the article. If it has no supporting evidence than it falls under conspiracy theory.
In the alternative take out the word conspiracy from the Fort Detrick section to remain consistent. 2603:8081:4A00:B792:943B:5930:8B33:7DE4 ( talk) 15:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Should we mention that Eddie Holmes was one of the first to suggest an artificial origin of sars2? " Eddie [Holmes], Bob [Garry], Mike [Farzan], and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory" 2600:1700:8660:E180:5016:B632:8AD1:4513 ( talk) 04:53, 21 October 2022 (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.
I see this article claims in the lead that there's no evidence for the lab leak theory, although it's beyond abundant and conclusive at this point. On the other other hand, is there even a scintilla of evidence for the natural origin theory? -- 2600:1700:B020:1490:9427:D713:7A5:2990 ( talk) 12:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Under any laboratory escape scenario, SARS-CoV-2 would have to have been present in a laboratory prior to the pandemic, yet no evidence exists to support such a notion and no sequence has been identified that could have served as a precursor.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
The Pekar et al (2022) paper " The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2" is online and published. I see that Alexbrn edited in favor of waiting for a MEDRS before using this source. I've been following the debate on twitter on how is this result impacting the consensus around the different origin hypotheses, and there is still controversy over this issue. A sidenote result is that Science is no longer opposing Nature in the way it handles origins' papers, by publishing Pekar it is implicitly approving the natural origin story. What is your take on how this will impact our coverage of SARS-CoV-2 origin here in Wikipedia? Forich ( talk) 21:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Alexbrn ( talk) 03:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)This data is almost impossible to align with the lab-leak hypothesis. You would have to believe that there were two lab-leak events, both of which promptly went to the Huanan market and spread the virus. That represents epic-level special pleading, and is not sound epidemiological reasoning. ¶ At this point the lab-leak hypothesis should be scientifically dead. The dominant hypothesis, that COVID resulted from zoonotic spillover events in the Huanan market, has now emerged as a fairly solid conclusion.
2600:8804:6600:45:8976:A77A:5C7A:FA16 ( talk) 16:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Founder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the host and producer of the popular weekly science podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, and the author of the NeuroLogicaBlog, a daily blog that covers news and issues in neuroscience, but also general science, scientific skepticism, philosophy of science, critical thinking, and the intersection of science with the media and society. Dr. Novella also has produced two courses with The Great Courses, and published a book on critical thinking - also called The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.
His academic peers, at least, wouldn't view him an authority on infectious disease, respiratory medicine, tropical medicine, or any other field relevant to our friends the viruses. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)His practice includes general neurology with a special interest in neuromuscular disease. His research interests include ALS, myasthenia gravis, neuropathy, and erythromelalgia.
2600:8804:6600:45:8976:A77A:5C7A:FA16 ( talk) 15:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)We queried the GISAID database (57), GenBank, and National Genomics Data Center of the China National Center for Bioinformatics (CNCB)
The first article acknowledges that "events upstream of the market ... remain obscure..." Those "events upstream" could include a scenario in which someone associated with the Virology Institute was unknowingly infected with the virus and carried it to the market while shopping.
Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 13:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The linked guideline ( WP:BIASED) explains that "reliable sources are not required to be … unbiased or objective." More at WP:RSP#GREL:There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles.
News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertiseand WP:NEWSORG (
Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics)).The discipline here is not "science." It's "virology." Hence, Bailey is not a subject-matter expert by any reasonable meaning of the term. In fact, what Bailey's history shows us is that he is likely very biased on this topic which has lots of political influence. He is a self-described libertarian [8] who has published books such as Ecoscam, and other pieces in which he espouses an unrestrained exploitation narrative supporting continued harvesting of Earth's natural resources, despite current scientific evidence supporting a continually decreasing reservoir of same. Since much of the zoonotic argument boils down to 'we are eroding natural ecology, causing increased interaction of animal virus reservoirs with humans, increasing the likelihood of zoonosis,' [9] [10] [11] [12] I would consider Bailey exactly the opposite of who we should be consulting on the likelihood of zoonosis.Ultimately, this debate back and forth is likely to go nowhere. If you want to use Bailey to contradict parts of this article, I suggest you take it up at WP:RSN, where I can promise I will make the same argument. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
There's no way in which the current section is "background". A mention of the Fort Detrick 2019 incident could go in the "prior lab leak" part of background. Everything else about it belongs in "China-US relations". Sennalen ( talk) 14:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The purpose of that section is to give an overview of known challenges involved in pathogen containment. It is not a place to insert new evidence about the origins of SARS Cov2. It is not a place for background on other conspiracy theories. Taking a section formed of peer-reviewed science and adding one claim about a conspiracy theory so "conspiracy theory" can be added to the section title is terribly transparent PoV pushing. Sennalen ( talk) 21:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
While a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle.(See WP:EDITWAR.) - Dervorguilla ( talk) 23:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:N "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability."
WP:SUMMARYSTYLE "Each subtopic article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in the parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article, and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles."
Articles that currently name zero references ... may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation thateach point is supported by some (unnamed) RS.
There is a reasonable expectation thateach and every one of those source additions is supported by some other unnamed reliable source citing the added source as background to this topic. (See WP:OR.)
Sennalen ( talk) 22:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Support all points. Some established authorities apparently would now concur that disseminating this information more broadly may encourage Beijing to be more forthcoming. Cf. "Study: Huanan Market Was 'Epicenter'", by science correspondent Ronald Bailey: "In June, the World Health Organization urged the Chinese government ... to allay speculations about lab leaks by being more forthcoming about the work on coronavirus viruses undertaken at the Wuhan Institute... The world is still waiting to hear from them." Not just conspiracy theorists: the world. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 13:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
That linked guideline ( WP:BIASED) says, "reliable sources are not required to be … unbiased or objective." So whether it's news or opinion, Bailey's article may well be a reliable source here. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 21:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles.
Lineage B has been the most common throughout the pandemic and includes all eleven sequenced genomes from humans directly associated with the Huanan market, including the earliest sampled genome, Wuhan/IPBCAMS-WH-01/2019, and the reference genome, Wuhan/Hu-1/2019 (hereafter ‘Hu-1’) (5), sampled on 24 and 26 December 2019, respectively. The earliest lineage A viruses, Wuhan/IME-WH01/2019 and Wuhan/WH04/2020, were sampled on 30 December 2019 and 5 January 2020, respectively." We do not have any samples earlier than PBCAMS-WH-01. And it's from the market. One could say there "may" have been earlier cases, but it is entirely speculation.Point 4 is contradicted by several of our sources, which describe serial passage as unlikely to the point of pseudoscience, and the others as entirely speculative with no evidence in support. Pseudoscience is a word often used to describe unproven theories with poor acceptance among relevant experts. (e.g. the moon landing hoax, bigfoot, etc) We do not have evidence of Bigfoot, we do not have evidence to disprove bigfoot. it's still pseudoscience. There's probably, honestly, more evidence for Bigfoot's existence than there is for the lab leak theory. It's a low bar.And, as an aside, this is edging towards "discussion of the topic" rather than "discussion of the article". What alterations to the article text would you suggest, @ Sennalen? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
the observation that the preponderance of early cases were linked to the Huanan market does not establish that the pandemic originated there.
What alterations to the article text would you suggest?— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I am perplexed by the claim that there is an attempt to entertain an opinion that experts take anything but a wet market origin of COVID-19 as likely. [16] If that's too dense for you, try the podcast with the author: [17] Does any legitimate expert still harbor doubts after this? I can't find them. I think the article should reflect that the study has been done and the results are just about as conclusive as you can get in science. jps ( talk) 22:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
. Removal of "legal" terminology from scientific papers is a feature of peer-review, it says, and NBD. Alexbrn ( talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Lab leak conspiracy theorists seem to be perseverating on how the word “dispositive,” which was apparently used in the preprints to describe this evidence but was removed from the final versions of the studies as published in Science.
Together, these analyses provide dispositive evidence for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 via the live wildlife trade and identify the Huanan market as the unambiguous epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, 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.
Collectively, these results provide incontrovertible evidence that there was a clear conduit, via susceptible live mammals, for the zoonotic emergence of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan market towards the end of 2019.
The sustained presence of a potential source of virus transmission into the human population in late 2019, plausibly from infected live mammals sold at the Huanan market, offers an explanation of our findings and the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
I'll just note that in the above exchange, the people arguing that the paper was less than conclusive did so on the basis of some contortions that did not deal substantively with the content that was linked. Who cares what word they decided upon? The paper speaks for itself as does the one on genetic lineages. What is left? This reminds me a lot of when the Berkeley Earth results came out and the people who did not expect that they would confirm anthropogenic climate change simply argued that it wasn't conclusive. Well, this is as good as science gets. If you don't recognize that, then what are we doing here? jps ( talk) 14:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
substitute certainty for likelihoodhits the nail on the head, and when people compromise on source quality to do it, that is PROFRINGE behavior. Sennalen ( talk) 17:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I recommend you stop your WP:ADVOCACY. I known not from whence it comes. jps ( talk) 12:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
offering a comprehensive overview of this whole sage, now that it's over:
This can usefully be used to accurify the article. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
In a real BSL-2+/3 ...Maybe that's why Canada doesn't have a historical record of serious lab leaks? - Dervorguilla ( talk) 02:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Let's get to the point, comrades: NEWSORG tells us that opinion pieces are rarely reliable for statements of fact. So we can't use Gorski's opinions to "accurify" this article (or any other). All we can do is present his viewpoint (in conjunction with, say, Bailey's; see discussion). - Dervorguilla ( talk) 07:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
English Wikipedia is implicitly acknowledging that these agencies are the real experts on global biolab security (versus "crankery"). They have trained staff who make their living investigating such matters. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 23:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Of the eight assembled teams, one (the FBI) leaned towards a lab leak… British intelligence agencies believe it is "feasible" that the virus began with a leak from a Chinese laboratory.
conspiracy theoristseight times! "What the conspiracy theorists are doing" is directly related to that topic.
directly related to the topic of the article. ( NOR.)
minor aspectsand
overall significanceto the topic. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
directly related to the topic of the article.
best respected and most authoritative reliable sources. ( NPOV#BESTSOURCES.) And SBM isn't really perceived as fitting in that category. Some likely reasons are listed at RS#SOURCETYPES:
controversial within the relevant field. None of its staff have ever published an academic journal article on infectious disease (or sociology, or psychology).
largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse. If you
try the libraryfor reputable journal articles, most academic librarians will tell you they've never heard of it. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list.
most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable.See WP:WAPO for those discussions. And our article does cite it 15 times. - Dervorguilla ( talk) 23:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
expert on cranks and crankery; there are domain experts, and nonexperts. "Dunking on cranks" cannot be done intelligently or with integrity without domain expertise, since any lies will contain elements of truth, and only an expert is qualified to sift through all claims and separate the true from the false. DFlhb ( talk) 14:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Gao et al. reported that there were no positive animal samples at the Huanan market. They further reported that there was no correlation between the locations of the animal sellers in the market or the locations with the highest densities of humans and the locations of the positive environmental samples in the market. Based on these findings, Gao et al suggested that the market “acted as an amplifier,” with infections being brought into the market by humans infected elsewhere.
End of lead:
Holmes is a co-author on both papers; the current phrasing strongly implies that he is a neutral expert. This should be either clarified, or another expert should be named here if any equivalent statements have been made. DFlhb ( talk) 15:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
These developments led virologist..., "these developments" refers to his own study)
This is out : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/ 2803:1800:510E:C5C7:18EE:639:2594:21AF ( talk) 16:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC) forgot to sign in Forich ( talk) 16:20, 7 October 2022 (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.
perhaps there is something interesting for wikipedian english editors here
the link for this is in this page https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/news/ec-republican-leaders-request-national-academy-of-medicine-investigate-ecohealth-alliance-president-peter-daszak-for-misconduct/ at the bottom "CLICK HERE to read the full letter to NAM Home Secretary Elena Fuentes-Afflick"
Vatadoshu french 08:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
on the page https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/news/ec-republican-leaders-request-national-academy-of-medicine-investigate-ecohealth-alliance-president-peter-daszak-for-misconduct/ there is another link interesting "CLICK HERE to read the Republican Leaders’ April 16, 2021 letter to Daszak." where it is said ""In 2020, Dr. Shi Zhengli of WIV published a genomic sequence for RaTG13. According to available information first published in 2016, RaTG13 is 96.2 percent similar to SARS-CoV- 2 and was gathered in 2012 from bat caves in the Yunnan Province, then. This sequence is the most similar to SARS-CoV2 that is publicly known. " . And another source https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09469
says it is the closest too. So the closest covid virus was created in 2016 in wuhan. It is not politic it is science. Science history. Vatadoshu french 09:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
note that politiciens have references in there letters too so you could just take sentences and verify with the references of the letters. sentences seems to have good references. I have verified some sentence with the references and sentences does not seems to lie. there is this too: http://www.normalesup.org/~vorgogoz/conferences/21-04-controversies- Vatadoshu french 10:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
http://www.normalesup.org/~vorgogoz/conferences/21-04-controversies-SARS-CoV-2-part3-Mojiang-pneumonia.pdf Vatadoshu french 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Garry (2022) says Harrison and Sachs cite work on rat ENaC from UNC(3,4) and suggest that the UNC and WIV coronavirologists may have mimicked human ENaC FCS to make SARS-CoV-2 more infectious for lung epithelia
. Garry then inmediately counters this by saying that four extra aminoacids, not eight, were added, and other technical explanations that debunk the hyphotesis. My questions is if all of this already covered in this entry or is it worthy of mentioning?
Forich (
talk) 20:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The Fort Detrick theory is called a conspiracy theory however the term is not used for the rest of the article despite the introduction saying the Chinese lab leak theory has no supporting evidence. I propose adding the word conspiracy to the introduction of the article. If it has no supporting evidence than it falls under conspiracy theory.
In the alternative take out the word conspiracy from the Fort Detrick section to remain consistent. 2603:8081:4A00:B792:943B:5930:8B33:7DE4 ( talk) 15:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Should we mention that Eddie Holmes was one of the first to suggest an artificial origin of sars2? " Eddie [Holmes], Bob [Garry], Mike [Farzan], and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory" 2600:1700:8660:E180:5016:B632:8AD1:4513 ( talk) 04:53, 21 October 2022 (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.
I see this article claims in the lead that there's no evidence for the lab leak theory, although it's beyond abundant and conclusive at this point. On the other other hand, is there even a scintilla of evidence for the natural origin theory? -- 2600:1700:B020:1490:9427:D713:7A5:2990 ( talk) 12:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Under any laboratory escape scenario, SARS-CoV-2 would have to have been present in a laboratory prior to the pandemic, yet no evidence exists to support such a notion and no sequence has been identified that could have served as a precursor.