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 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Attached is the important article " A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus" that was recently published in PNAS by Jeffry Sachs and Neil L. Harrison. We should discuss and include it. There is also an additional newspaper article " Did US Biotechnology Help to Create COVID-19? "from May 27 that adds various points. These articles are an excellent summary of the current discussion.-- Empiricus ( talk) 16:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but it's an important opinion← If so, it will be surely be treated in reliable, peer-reviewed secondary literature. But for our current purposes (editing an encyclopedia), it's useless. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
all statements, even from reliable sources, are opinions. Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. If we lived in Galileo's time, we would have had to report that the Sun went around the Earth, which is what the consensus of existing sources was, even if that is now demonstrably untrue. Neither Sachs nor Harrison (the other author of that letter) are virologists, so in terms of how much weight we need to give to their opinion piece, the answer is "not very much". RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
On the question of the origin of the coronavirus, there is systematic cherry-picking by some authors - based on the Lancet opinion of March 2020. There is no open, neutral content on the laboratory hypothesis in the article.Yeah, of course, "sources which don't promote the hypothesis I like are biased." This is well within the classic and stereotypical "why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat" territory.
Wikipedia is about verifiable true thesesAgain, wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a summary of knowledge, which is not quite exactly the same thing as "The Truth". Knowledge as determined by knowledgeable people (a.k.a. subject-matter experts) whose views, findings and opinions can be verified in reliable, high-quality sources. What individual Wikipedians think of the matter is irrelevant (since that is not how we determine neutral point of view); and at worst arrogant (since it comes out bluntly as "I know better than the people who are recognised experts on the matter"). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
written by two scientists involved investigations into the origin of COVID-19. One of the authors is Jeffrey Sachs, who is unqualified to talk about such topics as a scholar (he's an economist and a public policy analyst), and even though he indeed chairs the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, he and two other commissioners out of six do not have health policy, much less medical expertise; the other seems to be much more interested in neurology than virology. The only peer-reviewed paper about any aspect of COVID is this one (among the ones he lists on his profile), but there he is mentioned as the last author (even if corresponding) and the paper doesn't speak of the origins, but only of the ion channels, and doesn't even touch on topics which are popular among those advocating the lab leak theory (other COVID papers, also not discussing the origins, are pre-prints).
the links of health and development, economic geography, globalization, transition to market economies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, international financial markets, international macroeconomic policy coordination, emerging markets, economic development and growth, global competitiveness, and macroeconomic policies in developing and developed countries.Point to anything that squarely relates to the topic of COVID origins.
That is your private opinionActually, its more up to consensus. And the. consensus in this case is not in favor of calling a single guy's opinion a "reliable source" simply because he served on a commission. We must, instead, rely on secondary sources to tell us whether or not this person is reliable. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
the reliability of a source depends on contextso I can't agree that this source isn't reliable in any context, on the subject of this page (lab leak). That just sounds like a very extreme exclusionist view. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 16:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It is not the job of Wikipedia to determine the truth or otherwise of the Lab Leak Hypothesis. However, it is the the job of Wikipedia to present notable arguments and opinions for and against the hypothesis. The Lancet investigation is clearly important, and so that should definitely be mentioned in its own right, with a link to [3]
The question of the Sachs and Harrison article is not whether it is true but whether it is notable. I think that Sachs as chair of the Lancet Commission, plus the publication of the article in a major journal obviously makes it very notable. It also summarizes the arguments nicely.
Now, if editors find that the article contains errors and misrepresentations, then, with references, that should be pointed out. But the article obviously needs to be mentioned. Tuntable ( talk) 10:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The Lancet is perhaps the most prestigious medical publication. To say that the Lancet Commission is a "Fringe View" is nonsense. It is obviously a major publication. And as chair of the committee the paper clearly is not "Fringe". WP:GEVAL should not be used as an excuse for censorship. Tuntable ( talk) 00:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The Preliminary Report of the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), 9 June 2022 has some important implications. For example, there is no longer a weighting of the possible origins of the virus. The options are all equally ranked. What is also important is that the laboratory hypothesis is presented under the terms of biosafety and biosecurity. The report is close to Sach's PNAS article in the direction of transparency, neutral point of view and open minded for all possibilities. This is a huge difference to the first report of 2021.
There are a number of points that are important, should be discussed and should be included as a separate chapter in the article. -- Empiricus ( talk) 19:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The SAGO recognizes the work of the joint WHO-China team and the findings presented in their report.Presumably, that would include the "extremely unlikely" conclusion. Though I'm not holding my breath they'll get those answers, as later in the section they say:
To support biosafety and biosecurity investigations into the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population through a laboratory incident; the SAGO notes that there would need to be access to and review of the evidence of all laboratory activities (both in vitro and in vivo studies) with coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2-related viruses or close ancestors and the laboratory’s approach to implementation and improvement of laboratory biosafety and biosecurity. As it is not common practice to publish the institutional implementation of biosafety and biosecurity practices of individual laboratories in peer-reviewed scientific journals, additional information will need to be obtained and reviewed to make conclusive recommendations.Same limitation as any other study, it depends on the cooperation of the WIV, and they appear unlikely to cooperate as long as they feel like they're being targeted. Who knows, maybe that has changed through the shift to SAGO and other world political changes.
It is noted that three members of SAGO (Dr Vladimir Dedkov, Dr Carlos Morel, Professor Yungui Yang) do not agree with the inclusion of further studies evaluating the possibility of introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to the human population through a laboratory incident in this preliminary report due to the fact that from their viewpoint, there is no new scientific evidence to question the conclusion of the WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part mission report published in March 2021. Out of 27 total members, so not a majority by any means, but I think it's notable they added this specifically as a footnote. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
There is not a single piece of evidence for any of the hypotheses so far" this appears to be your opinion, as the section of the SAGO report lists many studies investigating this, and several animals in which the virus has been found. You appear to personally have defined this as not evidence. Further, you are conducting original research into this question, determining what you think is Chinese doctrine, and should therefore be discarded. I am sorry but this discussion is no longer based in either reliable sources or WP:PAGs, and therefore is not suitable for this page. It is now more akin to a WP:SOAPBOX of your beliefs of what should and should not be considered likely. That is not the purpose of wikipedia. I and many others will likely reply only when and if this discussion is based in sources, quotes, and PAGs. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 11:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
there is no longer a weighting of the possible origins of the virus. The options are all equally ranked." The absence of weighing the possibilities does not mean that the options are all equally ranked. To suggest as much is original research. That is one among many examples. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
to thisSome scientists agree that the possibility of a lab leak should be examined as part of ongoing investigations
. Forich ( talk) 02:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)The possibility of lab leaks is now being considered by the WHO and its advisors to be included as standard elements of the investigations on the origins of pandemics, including periodic monitoring of laboratories' internal research activities regarding risky pathogens
including periodic monitoring of laboratories' internal research activities regarding risky pathogens. I also don't see that this:
possibility of lab leaks is now being considered by the WHO and its advisors to be included as standard elements of the investigations on the origins of pandemicsis a new thing. As far as I am aware, for many decades even before the 1967 Marburg virus outbreak, it has been standard practice to consider this possibility. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 13:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Broad areas to include in a global framework include review of biosafety programme administration, including risk-based assessment of biosafety and biosecurity measures for all pathogens and their associated activities. The global framework should cover pathogen storage and accountability, staff competency and training, as well as guidelines for creating and maintaining necessary facility structures and infrastructure to ensure the integrity of the biocontainment engineering facilities.It does not say periodical nor monitoring. Maybe SAGO including this review of biosafety programme administration is not related to laboratories, or if it is, is the same regulation in place since decades ago as Shibbolethink suggests, I can not tell. Thanks to ScrumptiousFood for bringing up the biorisk report, was not aware of it and will read it. Forich ( talk) 04:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The current version of the article states: Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.
The problem with this statement is that scientists are currently divided on whether alteration to the SARS-CoV-2 genome, or (more precisely) its immediate progenitor's genome, can be determined without access to laboratory records 1 2 3 4 5.
Baric Graham 2020 (PMID: 32392464) cites Andersen et al (PMID: 32284615) in light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2. But as Ralph Baric later told to PresaDiretta, "You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace" [1]. After dampening his "smoking gun" comment about the FCS, David Baltimore told to Caltech "You can't distinguish between the two origins from just looking at the sequence" [2]. And more significantly, after a (unapproved) grant request by EHA about coronavirus GoF experiments was leaked in Sep 2021; Jack Nunberg told to The Intercept "Whether that particular study did or didn’t [lead to the pandemic], it certainly could have" [3] and Alexander Kekulé told to German television "My unease about the possibility that it could have been a laboratory accident has increased" [4]. Simon Wain Hobson wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about it: "What we do not know - and badly need to know - is whether this proposal was submitted elsewhere, financed and performed." [5].
A neutral statement would reflect the views of these scientists as expressed in these more recent sources, while tempering confidence about facts that scientists can't know without access to key documents at the Wuhan laboratory. The full quote from Baric is "You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace. The answers you are looking for, however, can only be found in the archives of the Wuhan laboratory".
80.107.62.75 ( talk) 07:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory.;
The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses.) and rather a mild way to refer to it (I've also seen
As a conclusion, there is no evidence to support the Mojiang mine origin of SARS-CoV-2 and any of the laboratory leak theories. ... These narratives are not evidence-based scientific conclusions. ... In a time of geopolitical conflicts characterized by hidden agendas, false information and manipulations, it is essential to rely only on scientific and evidence-based conclusions and to avoid opinion-based narratives.RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
there are numerous other papers that argue strongly (and with good evidence) that it is a lab leak-- Could you provide a single secondary review paper published in a reputable topic-relevant journal and peer reviewed by topic experts which supports this claim? I cannot think of a single one. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
a number of reputed scientists commented extensively on this scenario, so it's an open question, not a minority view" - By this logic, whether or not bigfoot exists is also an open question. Whether or not aliens have visited earth. Etc. etc. On wikipedia, it is not in line with the WP:PAGs to determine scientific consensus or prevailing scientific view (and the nature of its majority vs minority opinions) via news reports and quotations. We also don't assess what is "
an open question" via these methods. WP:MEDASSESS and WP:RS/AC tell us how to assess such things, and it is not via interpretation or summation of a bunch of individual quotations from individual people. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 04:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Currently, there are some fictitious and pseudoscientific claims as well as conspiracy theories associated with the Covid‐19 pandemic. Some people have alleged that SARS‐CoV‐2 is of laboratory origin and the result of deliberate genetic manipulation. According to these conspiracy theories, a novel virus is a human‐made biological weapon, not the result of natural evolution and selection.(Rev Med Virol., 2021 Feb 14) is rather unambiguously clear and there is no need for us to take any half-measures regarding this. Stop wasting people's time. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
incompetent" ? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
a lab conducting gain-of-function research it not a scientific or biomedical claim but a bog standard human "Well, were you?" question[5]. Yes I read that entire discussion. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 16:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
we don't know if the virus was engineered. So, by your reasoning, it is speculative. Hence why the only place where that Ralph Baric paper is cited in this sentence is after the word "speculation." — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Editors oppose the statement for one reason (POV)" - please do not continue to speak for the opinions of other editors without specific quotations, per the talk page guidelines. Holmes et al is a peer-reviewed secondary review article published in a well-regarded topic-relevant journal, and thus is the best available source for depicting the view of the scientific community about this question. We do not have higher or equivalent quality sources which contradict Holmes on this. The Baric paper also has the quote which even includes the word "speculation". If you believe it fails verification, you should attempt to gather consensus on that view. We have discussed this many times before (stretching all the way back to March of last year [7] [8] [9]), and the informal consensus was in favor of including this word with this sourcing. We should not escalate every dispute to an RFC, as this is a fundamental component of tendentious editing and indeed, I would caution you against this. Given the substantial amount of discussions we have had on this, and the accompanying sourcing, I would view this as a substantial waste of editor time and effort. On the other hand, if you do escalate this into an RFC, we could get a firm formal consensus on it, and add it to the consensus banner at the top of this page! — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe the only scenario that has no supporting evidence based in fact is "Bioweapon".Please support your statements with references to reliable sources. Vague pronouncements do not keep us specific or grounded, and thus do not help the discussion approach consensus. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
the version proposing the virus may have escaped accidentally is more plausible. Plausibility is not synonymous with supporting evidence. It is very plausible that I will go outside right now and my neighbor will be walking across the way and say hello and wave to me. It has never happened before, but it is certainly plausible. I have no evidence to suggest that this will happen. But it remains plausible. Please support your statements with reliable sources, or take your discussion to a platform where such baseless theorizing and invective is permitted. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
An RFC will be necessary if we cannot agree on this- Do you mean you will start an RFC if everyone here does not agree with your position, or are you open to reconsidering if provided any evidence? Or if you fail to find evidence which supports your position, as you have failed to do thus far?
refrain from constantly lecturing editors you disagree with on policies and guidelines- The only things that should be discussed on this talk page are 1) policies and guidelines (and their application to this article), 2) article content, and 3) source quality, utility, and verifiability. per WP:TALK#TOPIC. It seems, per that guideline, I am on topic.
Holmes et al is indeed a high quality source, but MEDRS is not the relevant sourcing criteria for determining a scientific consensus on this subject- You're right, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:PARITY are applicable. And as a result, much of the same considerations apply.
a review article giving one POV does not make it a scientific consensus- Review articles, especially when viewed in aggregate, depict the consensus of the scientific community, since they are peer-reviewed and editorially reviewed and themselves discuss the relevant literature in a secondary perspective. WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:RS/AC, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:PARITY tell us this is the type of source we should use here. And we have several which tell us that "speculation" is an appropriate term to use.
Scientists are divided on this question- Is what you describe here your personal opinion? What high quality peer reviewed secondary source are you using to determine that scientists are divided on this issue? When viewed in aggregate, our WP:BESTSOURCES (as shown in WP:NOLABLEAK) tell us that there is not much disagreement among scientists, and only a minority consider the lab leak theory a likely scenario. Only a very small minority consider there to be any supporting evidence for the theory. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Of course there were speculations, misinformation, or misrepresentations by many non-scientists, e.g. journalists, and that's enough for determining the accuracy of that statement. Note that the lede does not say "scientists have made speculations, misinformation etc.", it says "some versions" (by unspecified people) seeded the speculations etc. I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
versions of the theory alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.The only part of the statement it supports is that some scientists (Andersen e tal) have said that alteration of the genome and deliberate/accidental and is "social media speculation", but that paper is no less controversial than the Lancet letter, which I am writing an article about. The NPOV concern here is that we are not representing all significant (expert) views published in (newer) reliable sources, and my OR concern is that we are misrepresenting Baric's view, as published in RAI. Reputed scientists in RS and MEDRS have commented on evidence of possible genome alteration (the DEFUSE proposal), so putting it down so firmly as speculation and misinformation is POV. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 16:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
he actually invented "no-see'm" engineering methods that leave no traceThis is a misunderstanding of no-see'm and most of all, the ability to actually use that technology on SARS-CoV-2. It could not be used to alter the FCS, for example. The necessary base pairs are not present in the necessary locations.
newer and far better sources say engineering is absolutely a possibility as far as the lab leak theory is concernedWhich sources are those? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The necessary base pairs are not present in the necessary locations.What Baric said on RAI is that there are a few methods that would leave no trace. I mentioned no-see'm, which is just one method, without claiming it was the method used.
Which sources are those?By sources, I am referring to the above mentioned experts, like Baltimore, who said the genome cannot reveal origins, and Waine-Hobson and Kekulé, who reacted to the DEFUSE proposal, that was released a week AFTER Holmes et al was published. Despite being a review article, Holmes et al cannot answer the question of whether the WIV was doing what might be considered gain-of-function research on a virus that subsequently infected a laboratory worker [12]. As the PNAS piece says, this question is a matter for further investigation, both in China and the United States, and that's why I think the sentence we are discussing is POV. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 18:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
1) We follow scholarly sources for matters of science (e.g. epidemiology) (and prefer them for everything else) The AP does not trump the literature.
2) We avoid using news sources for our understanding of scientific papers for this exact reason. See
WP:RECENTISM.
3) We have sources and quotations in THIS VERY ARTICLE which describe how the WHO has always thought "more investigation is necessary." They said this exact thing in the first report.
If scholarship said all humans are born with a belly button, and a news report came out this morning saying "This just in! Humans no longer need belly buttons!" then we would wait to change the belly button article until a secondary scholarly review article had been published to that effect. See also WP:PARITY. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
One of the few pieces of fresh information in the report came from Chinese researchers, who responded to a request from SAGO and provided new data on blood samples taken from 40,000 people in Wuhan before the first COVID-19 cases surfaced in December 2019. Although 200 tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, those antibodies could not neutralize the virus in a confirmatory test, suggesting these were false positives. A dozen studies from Europe and the United States have offered evidence of SARS-CoV-2 or antibodies in biological or sewage samples taken before December 2019. Independent attempts to validate these studies so far have failed, but Chinese officials have highlighted them to suggest the pandemic originated elsewhere, and SAGO is still reviewing those data. Its report only notes that “the significance of these findings remains unclear.”Should we include info on the status of the analysis of antibodies in pre-Dec 2019 blood samples? 2600:8804:6600:45:D02D:6DB0:9EFD:BC61 ( talk) 23:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Although 200 tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, those antibodies could not neutralize the virus in a confirmatory test, suggesting these were false positives" is nonsense. I did my PhD on neutralizing vs non-neutralizing serum and antibody responses, and concluding that these are false positives from that fact alone is ridiculous and unscientific. We would need relative titers, analysis of epitopes, etc. You can't just say "non neutralizing = false positive." There is such a thing as a non-neutralizing but protective polyclonal or monoclonal antibody response. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe better to use a survey of reactionsThat works for me. Besides the "WHO did a reversal" reaction, what other reactions do you think should be included? Le Marteau ( talk) 06:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
the strongest evidence is still around a zoonotic transmission? Would help explain why you think there aren't PAG concerns (DUE, etc) with the original edit, or allow for clarification on improved wording to avoid those issues. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
DRASTIC is first mentioned in the "Mojiang copper mine" section and is not described until much later in the "Continuing coverage" section. Can we edit the article so that DRASTIC is described where they are first mentioned? Poppa shark ( talk) 23:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
COVID-19 lab leak theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In July 2022, Nick Paterson, a well-respected scientific writer, changed his mind and now "believes that COVID-19 originated as a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology" following the publication of "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19" by Mat Riddley and Alina Chan.
https://npatterson.substack.com/p/more-regulation-please KeithDud ( talk) 13:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
COVID-19 lab leak theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Poppa shark (
talk) 16:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
References
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 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Attached is the important article " A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus" that was recently published in PNAS by Jeffry Sachs and Neil L. Harrison. We should discuss and include it. There is also an additional newspaper article " Did US Biotechnology Help to Create COVID-19? "from May 27 that adds various points. These articles are an excellent summary of the current discussion.-- Empiricus ( talk) 16:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but it's an important opinion← If so, it will be surely be treated in reliable, peer-reviewed secondary literature. But for our current purposes (editing an encyclopedia), it's useless. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
all statements, even from reliable sources, are opinions. Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. If we lived in Galileo's time, we would have had to report that the Sun went around the Earth, which is what the consensus of existing sources was, even if that is now demonstrably untrue. Neither Sachs nor Harrison (the other author of that letter) are virologists, so in terms of how much weight we need to give to their opinion piece, the answer is "not very much". RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
On the question of the origin of the coronavirus, there is systematic cherry-picking by some authors - based on the Lancet opinion of March 2020. There is no open, neutral content on the laboratory hypothesis in the article.Yeah, of course, "sources which don't promote the hypothesis I like are biased." This is well within the classic and stereotypical "why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat" territory.
Wikipedia is about verifiable true thesesAgain, wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a summary of knowledge, which is not quite exactly the same thing as "The Truth". Knowledge as determined by knowledgeable people (a.k.a. subject-matter experts) whose views, findings and opinions can be verified in reliable, high-quality sources. What individual Wikipedians think of the matter is irrelevant (since that is not how we determine neutral point of view); and at worst arrogant (since it comes out bluntly as "I know better than the people who are recognised experts on the matter"). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
written by two scientists involved investigations into the origin of COVID-19. One of the authors is Jeffrey Sachs, who is unqualified to talk about such topics as a scholar (he's an economist and a public policy analyst), and even though he indeed chairs the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, he and two other commissioners out of six do not have health policy, much less medical expertise; the other seems to be much more interested in neurology than virology. The only peer-reviewed paper about any aspect of COVID is this one (among the ones he lists on his profile), but there he is mentioned as the last author (even if corresponding) and the paper doesn't speak of the origins, but only of the ion channels, and doesn't even touch on topics which are popular among those advocating the lab leak theory (other COVID papers, also not discussing the origins, are pre-prints).
the links of health and development, economic geography, globalization, transition to market economies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, international financial markets, international macroeconomic policy coordination, emerging markets, economic development and growth, global competitiveness, and macroeconomic policies in developing and developed countries.Point to anything that squarely relates to the topic of COVID origins.
That is your private opinionActually, its more up to consensus. And the. consensus in this case is not in favor of calling a single guy's opinion a "reliable source" simply because he served on a commission. We must, instead, rely on secondary sources to tell us whether or not this person is reliable. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
the reliability of a source depends on contextso I can't agree that this source isn't reliable in any context, on the subject of this page (lab leak). That just sounds like a very extreme exclusionist view. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 16:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It is not the job of Wikipedia to determine the truth or otherwise of the Lab Leak Hypothesis. However, it is the the job of Wikipedia to present notable arguments and opinions for and against the hypothesis. The Lancet investigation is clearly important, and so that should definitely be mentioned in its own right, with a link to [3]
The question of the Sachs and Harrison article is not whether it is true but whether it is notable. I think that Sachs as chair of the Lancet Commission, plus the publication of the article in a major journal obviously makes it very notable. It also summarizes the arguments nicely.
Now, if editors find that the article contains errors and misrepresentations, then, with references, that should be pointed out. But the article obviously needs to be mentioned. Tuntable ( talk) 10:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The Lancet is perhaps the most prestigious medical publication. To say that the Lancet Commission is a "Fringe View" is nonsense. It is obviously a major publication. And as chair of the committee the paper clearly is not "Fringe". WP:GEVAL should not be used as an excuse for censorship. Tuntable ( talk) 00:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The Preliminary Report of the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), 9 June 2022 has some important implications. For example, there is no longer a weighting of the possible origins of the virus. The options are all equally ranked. What is also important is that the laboratory hypothesis is presented under the terms of biosafety and biosecurity. The report is close to Sach's PNAS article in the direction of transparency, neutral point of view and open minded for all possibilities. This is a huge difference to the first report of 2021.
There are a number of points that are important, should be discussed and should be included as a separate chapter in the article. -- Empiricus ( talk) 19:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The SAGO recognizes the work of the joint WHO-China team and the findings presented in their report.Presumably, that would include the "extremely unlikely" conclusion. Though I'm not holding my breath they'll get those answers, as later in the section they say:
To support biosafety and biosecurity investigations into the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population through a laboratory incident; the SAGO notes that there would need to be access to and review of the evidence of all laboratory activities (both in vitro and in vivo studies) with coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2-related viruses or close ancestors and the laboratory’s approach to implementation and improvement of laboratory biosafety and biosecurity. As it is not common practice to publish the institutional implementation of biosafety and biosecurity practices of individual laboratories in peer-reviewed scientific journals, additional information will need to be obtained and reviewed to make conclusive recommendations.Same limitation as any other study, it depends on the cooperation of the WIV, and they appear unlikely to cooperate as long as they feel like they're being targeted. Who knows, maybe that has changed through the shift to SAGO and other world political changes.
It is noted that three members of SAGO (Dr Vladimir Dedkov, Dr Carlos Morel, Professor Yungui Yang) do not agree with the inclusion of further studies evaluating the possibility of introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to the human population through a laboratory incident in this preliminary report due to the fact that from their viewpoint, there is no new scientific evidence to question the conclusion of the WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part mission report published in March 2021. Out of 27 total members, so not a majority by any means, but I think it's notable they added this specifically as a footnote. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
There is not a single piece of evidence for any of the hypotheses so far" this appears to be your opinion, as the section of the SAGO report lists many studies investigating this, and several animals in which the virus has been found. You appear to personally have defined this as not evidence. Further, you are conducting original research into this question, determining what you think is Chinese doctrine, and should therefore be discarded. I am sorry but this discussion is no longer based in either reliable sources or WP:PAGs, and therefore is not suitable for this page. It is now more akin to a WP:SOAPBOX of your beliefs of what should and should not be considered likely. That is not the purpose of wikipedia. I and many others will likely reply only when and if this discussion is based in sources, quotes, and PAGs. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 11:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
there is no longer a weighting of the possible origins of the virus. The options are all equally ranked." The absence of weighing the possibilities does not mean that the options are all equally ranked. To suggest as much is original research. That is one among many examples. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
to thisSome scientists agree that the possibility of a lab leak should be examined as part of ongoing investigations
. Forich ( talk) 02:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)The possibility of lab leaks is now being considered by the WHO and its advisors to be included as standard elements of the investigations on the origins of pandemics, including periodic monitoring of laboratories' internal research activities regarding risky pathogens
including periodic monitoring of laboratories' internal research activities regarding risky pathogens. I also don't see that this:
possibility of lab leaks is now being considered by the WHO and its advisors to be included as standard elements of the investigations on the origins of pandemicsis a new thing. As far as I am aware, for many decades even before the 1967 Marburg virus outbreak, it has been standard practice to consider this possibility. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 13:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Broad areas to include in a global framework include review of biosafety programme administration, including risk-based assessment of biosafety and biosecurity measures for all pathogens and their associated activities. The global framework should cover pathogen storage and accountability, staff competency and training, as well as guidelines for creating and maintaining necessary facility structures and infrastructure to ensure the integrity of the biocontainment engineering facilities.It does not say periodical nor monitoring. Maybe SAGO including this review of biosafety programme administration is not related to laboratories, or if it is, is the same regulation in place since decades ago as Shibbolethink suggests, I can not tell. Thanks to ScrumptiousFood for bringing up the biorisk report, was not aware of it and will read it. Forich ( talk) 04:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The current version of the article states: Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.
The problem with this statement is that scientists are currently divided on whether alteration to the SARS-CoV-2 genome, or (more precisely) its immediate progenitor's genome, can be determined without access to laboratory records 1 2 3 4 5.
Baric Graham 2020 (PMID: 32392464) cites Andersen et al (PMID: 32284615) in light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2. But as Ralph Baric later told to PresaDiretta, "You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace" [1]. After dampening his "smoking gun" comment about the FCS, David Baltimore told to Caltech "You can't distinguish between the two origins from just looking at the sequence" [2]. And more significantly, after a (unapproved) grant request by EHA about coronavirus GoF experiments was leaked in Sep 2021; Jack Nunberg told to The Intercept "Whether that particular study did or didn’t [lead to the pandemic], it certainly could have" [3] and Alexander Kekulé told to German television "My unease about the possibility that it could have been a laboratory accident has increased" [4]. Simon Wain Hobson wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about it: "What we do not know - and badly need to know - is whether this proposal was submitted elsewhere, financed and performed." [5].
A neutral statement would reflect the views of these scientists as expressed in these more recent sources, while tempering confidence about facts that scientists can't know without access to key documents at the Wuhan laboratory. The full quote from Baric is "You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace. The answers you are looking for, however, can only be found in the archives of the Wuhan laboratory".
80.107.62.75 ( talk) 07:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory.;
The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses.) and rather a mild way to refer to it (I've also seen
As a conclusion, there is no evidence to support the Mojiang mine origin of SARS-CoV-2 and any of the laboratory leak theories. ... These narratives are not evidence-based scientific conclusions. ... In a time of geopolitical conflicts characterized by hidden agendas, false information and manipulations, it is essential to rely only on scientific and evidence-based conclusions and to avoid opinion-based narratives.RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
there are numerous other papers that argue strongly (and with good evidence) that it is a lab leak-- Could you provide a single secondary review paper published in a reputable topic-relevant journal and peer reviewed by topic experts which supports this claim? I cannot think of a single one. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
a number of reputed scientists commented extensively on this scenario, so it's an open question, not a minority view" - By this logic, whether or not bigfoot exists is also an open question. Whether or not aliens have visited earth. Etc. etc. On wikipedia, it is not in line with the WP:PAGs to determine scientific consensus or prevailing scientific view (and the nature of its majority vs minority opinions) via news reports and quotations. We also don't assess what is "
an open question" via these methods. WP:MEDASSESS and WP:RS/AC tell us how to assess such things, and it is not via interpretation or summation of a bunch of individual quotations from individual people. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 04:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Currently, there are some fictitious and pseudoscientific claims as well as conspiracy theories associated with the Covid‐19 pandemic. Some people have alleged that SARS‐CoV‐2 is of laboratory origin and the result of deliberate genetic manipulation. According to these conspiracy theories, a novel virus is a human‐made biological weapon, not the result of natural evolution and selection.(Rev Med Virol., 2021 Feb 14) is rather unambiguously clear and there is no need for us to take any half-measures regarding this. Stop wasting people's time. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
incompetent" ? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
a lab conducting gain-of-function research it not a scientific or biomedical claim but a bog standard human "Well, were you?" question[5]. Yes I read that entire discussion. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 16:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
we don't know if the virus was engineered. So, by your reasoning, it is speculative. Hence why the only place where that Ralph Baric paper is cited in this sentence is after the word "speculation." — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Editors oppose the statement for one reason (POV)" - please do not continue to speak for the opinions of other editors without specific quotations, per the talk page guidelines. Holmes et al is a peer-reviewed secondary review article published in a well-regarded topic-relevant journal, and thus is the best available source for depicting the view of the scientific community about this question. We do not have higher or equivalent quality sources which contradict Holmes on this. The Baric paper also has the quote which even includes the word "speculation". If you believe it fails verification, you should attempt to gather consensus on that view. We have discussed this many times before (stretching all the way back to March of last year [7] [8] [9]), and the informal consensus was in favor of including this word with this sourcing. We should not escalate every dispute to an RFC, as this is a fundamental component of tendentious editing and indeed, I would caution you against this. Given the substantial amount of discussions we have had on this, and the accompanying sourcing, I would view this as a substantial waste of editor time and effort. On the other hand, if you do escalate this into an RFC, we could get a firm formal consensus on it, and add it to the consensus banner at the top of this page! — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe the only scenario that has no supporting evidence based in fact is "Bioweapon".Please support your statements with references to reliable sources. Vague pronouncements do not keep us specific or grounded, and thus do not help the discussion approach consensus. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
the version proposing the virus may have escaped accidentally is more plausible. Plausibility is not synonymous with supporting evidence. It is very plausible that I will go outside right now and my neighbor will be walking across the way and say hello and wave to me. It has never happened before, but it is certainly plausible. I have no evidence to suggest that this will happen. But it remains plausible. Please support your statements with reliable sources, or take your discussion to a platform where such baseless theorizing and invective is permitted. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
An RFC will be necessary if we cannot agree on this- Do you mean you will start an RFC if everyone here does not agree with your position, or are you open to reconsidering if provided any evidence? Or if you fail to find evidence which supports your position, as you have failed to do thus far?
refrain from constantly lecturing editors you disagree with on policies and guidelines- The only things that should be discussed on this talk page are 1) policies and guidelines (and their application to this article), 2) article content, and 3) source quality, utility, and verifiability. per WP:TALK#TOPIC. It seems, per that guideline, I am on topic.
Holmes et al is indeed a high quality source, but MEDRS is not the relevant sourcing criteria for determining a scientific consensus on this subject- You're right, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:PARITY are applicable. And as a result, much of the same considerations apply.
a review article giving one POV does not make it a scientific consensus- Review articles, especially when viewed in aggregate, depict the consensus of the scientific community, since they are peer-reviewed and editorially reviewed and themselves discuss the relevant literature in a secondary perspective. WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:RS/AC, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:PARITY tell us this is the type of source we should use here. And we have several which tell us that "speculation" is an appropriate term to use.
Scientists are divided on this question- Is what you describe here your personal opinion? What high quality peer reviewed secondary source are you using to determine that scientists are divided on this issue? When viewed in aggregate, our WP:BESTSOURCES (as shown in WP:NOLABLEAK) tell us that there is not much disagreement among scientists, and only a minority consider the lab leak theory a likely scenario. Only a very small minority consider there to be any supporting evidence for the theory. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Of course there were speculations, misinformation, or misrepresentations by many non-scientists, e.g. journalists, and that's enough for determining the accuracy of that statement. Note that the lede does not say "scientists have made speculations, misinformation etc.", it says "some versions" (by unspecified people) seeded the speculations etc. I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
versions of the theory alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.The only part of the statement it supports is that some scientists (Andersen e tal) have said that alteration of the genome and deliberate/accidental and is "social media speculation", but that paper is no less controversial than the Lancet letter, which I am writing an article about. The NPOV concern here is that we are not representing all significant (expert) views published in (newer) reliable sources, and my OR concern is that we are misrepresenting Baric's view, as published in RAI. Reputed scientists in RS and MEDRS have commented on evidence of possible genome alteration (the DEFUSE proposal), so putting it down so firmly as speculation and misinformation is POV. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 16:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
he actually invented "no-see'm" engineering methods that leave no traceThis is a misunderstanding of no-see'm and most of all, the ability to actually use that technology on SARS-CoV-2. It could not be used to alter the FCS, for example. The necessary base pairs are not present in the necessary locations.
newer and far better sources say engineering is absolutely a possibility as far as the lab leak theory is concernedWhich sources are those? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The necessary base pairs are not present in the necessary locations.What Baric said on RAI is that there are a few methods that would leave no trace. I mentioned no-see'm, which is just one method, without claiming it was the method used.
Which sources are those?By sources, I am referring to the above mentioned experts, like Baltimore, who said the genome cannot reveal origins, and Waine-Hobson and Kekulé, who reacted to the DEFUSE proposal, that was released a week AFTER Holmes et al was published. Despite being a review article, Holmes et al cannot answer the question of whether the WIV was doing what might be considered gain-of-function research on a virus that subsequently infected a laboratory worker [12]. As the PNAS piece says, this question is a matter for further investigation, both in China and the United States, and that's why I think the sentence we are discussing is POV. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 18:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
1) We follow scholarly sources for matters of science (e.g. epidemiology) (and prefer them for everything else) The AP does not trump the literature.
2) We avoid using news sources for our understanding of scientific papers for this exact reason. See
WP:RECENTISM.
3) We have sources and quotations in THIS VERY ARTICLE which describe how the WHO has always thought "more investigation is necessary." They said this exact thing in the first report.
If scholarship said all humans are born with a belly button, and a news report came out this morning saying "This just in! Humans no longer need belly buttons!" then we would wait to change the belly button article until a secondary scholarly review article had been published to that effect. See also WP:PARITY. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
One of the few pieces of fresh information in the report came from Chinese researchers, who responded to a request from SAGO and provided new data on blood samples taken from 40,000 people in Wuhan before the first COVID-19 cases surfaced in December 2019. Although 200 tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, those antibodies could not neutralize the virus in a confirmatory test, suggesting these were false positives. A dozen studies from Europe and the United States have offered evidence of SARS-CoV-2 or antibodies in biological or sewage samples taken before December 2019. Independent attempts to validate these studies so far have failed, but Chinese officials have highlighted them to suggest the pandemic originated elsewhere, and SAGO is still reviewing those data. Its report only notes that “the significance of these findings remains unclear.”Should we include info on the status of the analysis of antibodies in pre-Dec 2019 blood samples? 2600:8804:6600:45:D02D:6DB0:9EFD:BC61 ( talk) 23:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Although 200 tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, those antibodies could not neutralize the virus in a confirmatory test, suggesting these were false positives" is nonsense. I did my PhD on neutralizing vs non-neutralizing serum and antibody responses, and concluding that these are false positives from that fact alone is ridiculous and unscientific. We would need relative titers, analysis of epitopes, etc. You can't just say "non neutralizing = false positive." There is such a thing as a non-neutralizing but protective polyclonal or monoclonal antibody response. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe better to use a survey of reactionsThat works for me. Besides the "WHO did a reversal" reaction, what other reactions do you think should be included? Le Marteau ( talk) 06:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
the strongest evidence is still around a zoonotic transmission? Would help explain why you think there aren't PAG concerns (DUE, etc) with the original edit, or allow for clarification on improved wording to avoid those issues. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
DRASTIC is first mentioned in the "Mojiang copper mine" section and is not described until much later in the "Continuing coverage" section. Can we edit the article so that DRASTIC is described where they are first mentioned? Poppa shark ( talk) 23:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
COVID-19 lab leak theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In July 2022, Nick Paterson, a well-respected scientific writer, changed his mind and now "believes that COVID-19 originated as a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology" following the publication of "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19" by Mat Riddley and Alina Chan.
https://npatterson.substack.com/p/more-regulation-please KeithDud ( talk) 13:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
COVID-19 lab leak theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Poppa shark (
talk) 16:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
References