Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

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


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. (RfC, February 2021): There is no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a "conspiracy theory" or if it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". There is no rough consensus to create a separate section/subsection from the other theories related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021): How a disease spreads, what changes its likelihood to spread and mutation information are, I believe, biomedical (or chemical) information. But who created something or where it was created is historical information. [...] Sources for information of any kind should be reliable, and due weight should be given in all cases. A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories.
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021)
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. (RfC, December 2021): Should the article include the sentence They have dismissed the theory based in part on Shi's emailed answers. See this revision for an example.[1] [...] Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... - it is obvious that there is clear consensus against including this.
  8. (RFC, October 2023): There is a consensus against mentioning that the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy announced in 2023 that they favor the lab leak theory in the lead of this article.
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)
  10. In the article COVID-19 lab leak theory there is no consensus to retain "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism" in the lead. Neither, however, is there a consensus to remove it from the lead. (RFC, December 2024).

Last updated (diff) on 19 March 2025 by Just10A (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

[edit]

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

Protected edit request on 19 March 2025 (CIA Assessment)

[edit]

I propose to better explain the CIA's January 2025 assessment. For example, I can't seem to find a copy of a "CIA report", so propose to change "the CIA released a report" to "the CIA released a statement".

Existing text:

In January 2025, the CIA released a report which concluded that the virus likely originated from a lab. The report had been created at the behest of the Biden administration and then CIA director William Burns, and was declassified by John Ratcliffe. The agency stated that it had "low confidence" in the conclusion, and that other scenarios such as a natural origin remain plausible.[1][2][3][4]

Proposed:

In January 2025, the CIA released a statement that concluded that the virus likely originated from a lab. The assessment had been created at the behest of the Biden administration and then CIA director William Burns. It was declassified by Burns's successor, John Ratcliffe, a proponent of the lab leak hypothesis. The agency stated that it had "low confidence" in the conclusion, and that other scenarios such as a natural origin remain plausible. The assessment was not based on new data, and no evidence was provided to support the conclusions.[5][Keep other refs the same, but note that Financial times I can't read due to paywall.]

ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence might qualify as opinion per WP:THECONVERSATION, but I'm not particularly familiar with it. Also, it would probably be better to just directly say what the assessment is vs what it is not, just because it's generally better writing. Something more akin to what was written in the Guardian, like: "Instead of new evidence, the conclusion was based on fresh analyses of intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs. Either way, it's all minor. Just10A (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "The last sentence might qualify as opinion per WP:THECONVERSATION" misrepresents or misunderstands WP:THECONVERSATION, which says "The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise.", which clearly applies here. JaggedHamster (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1.) I think you misinterpreted what I said. What I (and I think the perennial source list) meant was that The Conversation, like some other publications, does not have a dedicated opinion section, so we don't necessarily know when it's an op-ed or when it's not, so we have to discern. That's relevant since we're balancing it with other sources.
2.) Given there's clearly a discussion going on about it with multiple editors, I suggest you self-rev per WP:QUO. I think you'd agree it applies here. Just10A (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the existing sentence, as Just10A said, is summarizes what the assessment says, not what it doesn't say High Tinker (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is vital to state that CIA has not provided any evidence to support its claims, which are contrary to the consensus of experts and all available facts. In addition, it is highly relevant that the CIA leader who released the assessment is a proponent of the lab leak hypothesis. Therefore, I disagree with @Just10A's wholesale reversion of my edit. I'm fine with adjusting citations. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My "wholesale reversion", was just normal WP:QUO procedure, not a complete rejection of any copy editing possibilities. Just10A (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the existing text as per Just10A and High Tinker above. Also, I think you based parts of your changes on the following excerpt from the Débarre article: “According to The New York Times, the CIA’s revised assessment is based not on new evidence, but on a reinterpretation of existing data. However, the reasoning behind its reassessment, along with the supporting data, have not been made public, making it impossible to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the agency’s conclusions”. Wouldn’t it be better to refer to the original source, i.e. cite the New York Times with respect to the allegations that the CIA did not base their assessment on new data? I wasn’t able to find such statement in the New York Times and the link in the Débarre article gives a page not found disclaimer. In any case, if one does not know the contents of the CIA assessment, how can one affirm that it is not based on new data? Additionally, what does “new data” mean? In relation to what or when is the term “new” employed? Because of the previous reasons and this, I think the proposed version is problematic and dubious. Regards, 2804:7F4:323D:41E:788E:C438:83C4:2133 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new text is necessary because it summarizes the sources we're using - the Guardian says The finding is not the result of any new intelligence, extremely prominently; the BBC source says But officials told US media that the new assessment was not based on new intelligence and predates the Trump administration; NBC says The CIA’s assessment was not based on new intelligence but on analysts reviewing existing information, a source familiar with the matter told NBC News and Ratcliffe has long argued that the virus most likely emerged from a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; and the BBC says But officials told US media that the new assessment was not based on new intelligence and predates the Trump administration - every single source we are currently citing states this, yet we were omitting that fact in a way that potentially misled readers into believing that there was new intelligence. All of the objections above seem to ignore this fact - the sources we were previously using clearly stated and prominently it was not based on new intelligence, so we can't rely on those sources without stating it. The alternative to including that aspect would be to remove the paragraph entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "All of the objections above seem to ignore this fact". I literally quoted the Guardian (same source you used) and included in the quote that it's not based on new intelligence. Go back and reread. Just10A (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aquillion, thanks for your reply. I agree that the fact that no new data was used is appropriately and abundantly sourced; my issue is with the last sentence. First, “not based on new data” is taken with respect to what? I suppose it is the data used in the previous CIA assessment/report, but I could not find this clearly stated in any reference. If that is the case, we need to make sure to state the period in which the current assessment was carried out and, when saying that it is not based on new data, to state that this is wrt the previous CIA assessment with the period in which it was conducted. If we do not have sources for that, we should then strike it altogether because it is not clear. Second, claiming that “no evidence was provided to support the conclusions” is non neutral because we are talking about a CIA assessment and not the report that led to it. They decided to release the assessment without evidence, which is understandable because they cannot out their sources, among many other reasons. Talking about evidence there is misleading because it implies that the conclusion to which the CIA arrived was not based on any evidence, and we cannot even imply that because we do not have the report and it is also not realistic [edit: i.e., one would assume a top notch intelligence agency, coming to such assessment under Biden, would have at least some evidence to base their assessment on]. Given the previous issues, I think the last sentence should either be rewritten or replaced by Just10A’s suggestion, which in my view is more accurate, less biased and appropriately sourced. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:F521:7C83:B788:FC48 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScienceFlyer, I agree with you that no report was released to the public and I think so does Just10A and we can keep most of your edit. However, you have already pushed your version twice against the BRD policy and two editors pointed out to you that they find the last sentence is problematic and non neutral. Instead of pushing repeatedly maybe you could participate in this discussion. In my opinion, simply saying “no evidence was provided to support the conclusions” is misleading because an assessment release is not a report; it is not an adequate medium for presenting any evidence and none are expected. Therefore in my opinion this part should be rewritten, maybe saying that the report (together with the evidence used to reach such assessment, if any) was never released to the public. There is also the fact that “new data” is imprecise, and if there is no source that is precise enough to state what this “new” is relative to, then we should just strike it. What do you think about this? Thanks. 189.26.53.247 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScienceFlyer Have you not read WP:QUO or WP:NOCON? Either can apply. Whichever one you choose, please stop trying to edit war this in. Just10A (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A I have removed the entire paragraph in question, since there is clearly no consensus about how to include it. QUO is not a license for any editor to insist on their favorite version, where no stable version has ever existed. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1.)It’s not my preferred version. Its the one called for by both QUO and NOCON (which is a license to restore it to the previous version, as dictated by policy). Quo is an essay, NOCON is not, I was citing both just for abundance. (Also, that paragraph had sat there stably for a month plus??)
2.) This is fine, as long as it’s not being shoehorned in and policy is being followed, we’re good. We can workshop it and re-add it. Just10A (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should revert your removal. That was content whose inclusion had already been pacified, so much so that the current post treats it as an existing version and proposed a change on top of it. No one has proposed to remove that entire paragraph so far in this discussion. This is clear disruptive behavior on your part. If you want to take it out, propose it in the talk page. This is the general rule around here; or is it only valid when one attempts to add information that gives credit to the lab leak theory? Also, read the report by the Académie nationale de médecine below (an editor tried to DISCUSS it before adding it in the text, otherwise it would have been reverted, as you should know by now). These are respected and reputable epidemiologists and virologists, who when discussing the particular subject of this article did clearly mention the CIA assessment in their report. So it is clearly DUE, unless you consider yourself a better arbiter of that than those specialists. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:3169:FF8B:4A12:437B (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2804:7F4:323D:387D:3169:FF8B:4A12:437B I'd like to see evidence for That was content whose inclusion had already been pacified before reverting. I understand that those objecting to inclusion
consider the shorter version to be a stable status quo, but I have not seen any evidence for consensus on this point. (The fact that one editor has attempted to balance the short version by adding content to make it longer is not evidence of consensus that the short version is fine on its own.)
One approach to the situation would be to hold an RfC, offering the shorter and longer versions as alternatives. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon review, this paragraph seems to have sat almost untouched since late January (and through many other edits to the page) [4]. (This was the main edit, was minorly adjusted for one day after then stopped). I do think that a reasonable person would consider that long enough to be the "stable version."
Regardless, I think this is a pretty minor point. We can just make adjustments and re-add the workshopped version provided it's done pretty soon, I just wanted to state that so that there wouldn't be any confusion about the *broad* paragraph having consensus down the road. Just10A (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This could work, pretty much just the RS:
In January 2025, the CIA released a statement that concluded that the virus likely originated from a lab. The assessment had been created at the behest of the Biden administration and then CIA director William Burns, and was declassified by Burns's successor, John Ratcliffe. The agency stated that it had "low confidence" in the conclusion, and that other scenarios such as a natural origin remain plausible. The conclusion was not based on any new evidence, but on fresh analyses of intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs. Just10A (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A what is the source for The conclusion was (based) on fresh analysis of intelligence about the spread of the virus... etc.? And how is the basis of the conclusion presented in other sources? Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost a direct quote from the Guardian article:
"Instead of new evidence, the conclusion was based on fresh analyses of intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs." Just10A (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScienceFlyer What are you doing? You've been tagged twice in this discussion and are ignoring it, but are reverting edits in article space? You are blatantly ignoring policy and guidelines. If you have an issue, you should edit the paragraph posted or should raise it when you were tagged here to explicitly discuss a new version. Just10A (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A I'm concerned about plagiarism of at least 22 words from The Guardian, which warranted an immediate revert. Also, I saw no consensus for your proposed changes.
If you'd like another explicit statement about my opinion: I stand by keeping Florence Débarre's "The Conversation" article as a source. She is an expert, and there seems to be a lack of published expert opinion on the CIA statement. I also think it must be explicitly said that (1) the new CIA director is a lab leak proponent and (2) no evidence was provided to support the CIA's conclusion. The proposed, mostly plagiarized sentence "The conclusion was not based on any new evidence but on fresh analyses of intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties, and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs." seems like irrelevant fluff anyway and I'm not sure why it's necessary. In summary, I'm not sure what the problem was with the version you removed, so I stand by it.
To clarify some history: My edit was proposed on March 19, added on March 21, and existed for 12 days until April 3. I would appreciate it if you would pound the facts, rather than either making dubious attempts to pound what you think is the law and to pound the table. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, stop accusing me of plagiarism. It's a single sentence, and it's not even the same. The reason it's largely similar is because it's listing factors. Obviously the "list of reasons why they made the decision" is going to be the same, and the source is immediately cited. That's not plagiarism per WP:PLAGFORMS. We can just even attribute it if you feel that uncomfortable.
Secondly, Debarre is an expert in evolutionary biology not an expert in what the CIA said, which is the point of the section/paragraph. We can include her, but she's not really special. This isn't a MEDRs issue.
Lastly, this: "to clarify some history: My edit was proposed on March 19, added on March 21, and existed for 12 days until April 3." is frankly laughable. You're *conveniently* leaving out that the edit was immediately disputed on March 21st, reverted, then reinstated despite being contrary to WP: NOCON (policy) (as pointed out by multiple editors, both here and on my own talk page), and allowed to stay only while it was being discussed because people knew it would soon be resolved and didn't care enough to edit war you back.
Regardless, I really do not care. I'm trying to get this issue squared away. On that basis:
"In January 2025, the CIA released a statement that concluded that the virus likely originated from a lab. The assessment had been created at the behest of the Biden administration and then CIA director William Burns, and was declassified by Burns's successor, John Ratcliffe, who favors the lab leak theory. The agency stated that it had "low confidence" in the conclusion, and that other scenarios such as a natural origin remain plausible. The conclusion was not based on any new evidence, but on analyses of existing intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties, and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs."
We can add in-line Guardian attribution if need be.
How do people feel about this? Just10A (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That version looks good to me. Ratgomery (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A Thanks for your revised suggested text. The piece in The Guardian, which was reported by the Associated Press, still has too many words that overlap with your proposal (at least 19 in a row, see diff). I'd say if there's demand to have that section (which I think is unnecessary due to wordiness), then just quote the whole thing per WP:PLAGFORMS and credit the AP.
Florence Debarre comments on the CIA's statement:

However, the reasoning behind its reassessment, along with the supporting data, have not been made public, making it impossible to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the agency’s conclusions.

So I think it's a good source for an important statement "No evidence was provided to support the CIA's conclusion." This is a fact that she pointed out. And yes she is an expert on COVID and its origins, as shown by her publication history. But, indeed, it doesn't take an expert to explicitly point out that the CIA did not release any evidence for its extraordinary claims. I look forward to more feedback. ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Press, Associated (2025-01-26). "CIA now backs lab leak theory to explain origins of Covid-19". The Guardian. Retrieved 2025-01-26.
  2. ^ "CIA says Covid-19 probably leaked from Chinese laboratory". Financial Times. 2025-01-26. Retrieved 2025-01-26.
  3. ^ Honderich, Holly (2025-01-26). "Covid-19: CIA says lab leak most likely source of outbreak". BBC News. Retrieved 2025-01-26.
  4. ^ De Luce, Dan (2025-01-25). "CIA shifts assessment on Covid origins, saying lab leak likely caused outbreak". NBC News.
  5. ^ Débarre, Florence (25 February 2025). "The 'lab-leak origin' of Covid-19. Fact or fiction?". The Conversation. Retrieved 19 March 2025.

CIA says it is from a lab leak.

[edit]

Why hasn't this page been updated with the information from January 2025 that the CIA now says COVID most likely originated from a lab leak. This origin of Covid 19 is also the conclusion of the FBI. 156.47.130.181 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the previous discussions on this page to get your answer. --McSly (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editors are plagued by an anti-scientific assumption that the "experts" on a lab leak investigation are the people who investigate naturally occurring epidemics. That is to say, an epidemiologist's training assumes natural origin. They also happen to have a lot to lose if the lab leak theory turns out to be correct.
In reality, there are clearly no experts on this subject, because there's no way to empirically validate that epidemiologists can correctly identify lab leaks vs zoonotic origins for diseases more accurately than people in other fields can. In particular, the obvious question that the editors falsely presume to know the answer to is whether intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies should be considered more qualified to analyze the probability of a lab leak compared to epidemiologists. I would argue that they are, but regardless, this is clearly a matter of opinion. By failing to recognize this, the editors have decided that their own opinions on the validity of the lab leak are to be considered the prevailing opinion of experts by arbitrarily deciding who the experts are. 2601:547:1903:2200:E9E8:4137:ECA1:3F18 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources nonetheless. An Alina Chan for every Peter Daszak would be nice. Alexpl (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2601:547:1903:2200:E9E8:4137:ECA1:3F18 This WP:OR argument seems strictly parallel to arguing that Moon landing conspiracy theorists are more qualified to assess the likelihood of the Moon landing conspiracy theory (vs. an actual human landing) than are astrophysicists and aerospace engineers. I find it difficult to extend much rope to such an arguments and, in any case, the IP and others sharing their views have signally failed any support for the assertion that these intelligence agencies are reliable in their assertions about pandemic origins. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really comparing the moon landing conspiracy to the lab leak theory? Wait, has anything closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13/BANAL been found in live animals in nature? Ah, I see. In that case, let’s tone down a bit on the peremptoriness and wobbly analogies. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:7401:D8A4:9606:FD74 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2804:7F4:323D:387D:7401:D8A4:9606:FD74 To answer your question, I was responding to the logic of your argument, not the facts of the case. This logic (that experts in conspiracies can evaluate the conspiracy better because it's a conspiracy theory) is the same in both cases. Newimpartial (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial Your argument is based on the fact that the lab leak theory is a conspiracy as absurd as the moon landing one, and that one theory can be just as easily tested and validated as the other. Decades have passed since man landed on the moon, there is plenty of evidence that it indeed happened and the scientific community had no reputation or funding to lose had they concluded instead that it was a hoax. Therefore, I don’t see the logic as being equivalent. I also note that the lab leak theory being or not a conspiracy is not settled matter in academic circles. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:F521:7C83:B788:FC48 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is beginning to deviate away from discussion of article improvement and into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Regardless we've been over this a multitude of times; the CIA are not epidemologists or virologists but are rather intelligence operatives who have, for decades, specialized in propaganda to counter the geopolitical rivals of the United States. As such they're not particularly trustworthy next to, you know, scientific experts. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2804:7F4:323D:387D:F521:7C83:B788:FC48 No, IP, my argument is not based on assuming that the two conspiracy theories are equally absurd. At the same time, I would also point out that your major supporting premise is precisely wrong - I don't think there is much evidence for the moon landing from a scientific community (that) had no reputation or funding to lose had they concluded instead that it was a hoax. I think you will find that the evidence for the moon landing comes almost entirely from scientists and engineers who had a good deal of reputation or funding to lose - if anything, even more so than the epidemiological community weighing in on Covid-19. I am not presenting this as either an argument that the moon landing was faked (!) or that the basis with which the two conspiracy theories can be debunked is similar. What I am saying is that, if you apply to the moon landing the same degree of skepticism about COI that conspiracy theorists on this page apply to Covid, the supporting evidence for the moon landing becomes similarly weak - as is the nature of conspiracy theories in general.
Anyway, as I have said elsewhere on this page, the key questions about the lab leak hypothesis from a scientific standpoint are: (1) could Covid-19 have originated zoonotically, (2) is there evidence that human intervention (like GOF research) was involved in Covid origins, and (3) does evidence exist that Covid-19 was released from a lab. The consensus explanations within scientific communities are (1) yes, (2) no, and (3) no. Intelligence communities don't really disagree about (1), but they are more divided about (2) and (3). There is a contrarian scientific position - which I'd qualify as a FRINGE view - that raises obections to the consensus view on all three of these questions in ways that mirrors the intelligence community's range of assessments (of 2 and 3).
So as a Wikipedia editor, I conclude that intelligence community estimations should not change in any way our assessment of RS scientific perspectives, since the former are largely determined by factors other than scientific plausibility. It would be like basing geology articles on intelligence community estimates of rare earth resources rather than actual data provided by geologists. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the survey cited above, roughly 20% of experts believe in some sort of lab leak, 55% consider it plausible but less likely than natural zoonosis, and only 25% consider natural zoonosis to be proven.
The fraction of scientists who are sure we landed on the moon is presumably more than 99%. See the difference? - Palpable (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an interesting survey and the article certainly doesn't reflect the breakdown in expert opinion. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Palpable to answer your question: yes, I see the difference. I was arguing specifically about the relevance of intelligence community assessments, which is the topic of this section. How to characterize the scientific community's consensus around Covid origins is a different question. Intelligence community assessments do not become more or less relevant in themselves depending on the results one gets when polling scientists. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word "presumably" is carrying a lot of weight here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I disagree with almost everything written here. Above all, with the fact that this editor seems to think that concluding for the moon landing hoax would be more harmful to scientists than concluding for the lab leak theory. Maybe they live in another planet and are not aware of how many deaths this pandemic (which isn’t over yet) has caused and the negative impact it had on the lives of virtually everyone around the globe. Surely, if a lab leak is later found to have caused this pandemic, the blame for all of these deaths and suffering will be put on the scientific community (and not just on a particular group, lab or country, because research on this level is done with funding from various countries by researchers distributed in many parts of the world, and above all with unrealistic demands for publications and “scientific discoveries” that are ever increasing and enforced by basically every academic institution without focusing enough on giving proper conditions for research to be conducted, adequate monitoring to see if those conditions are met, and finally prioritizing quantity of research work over quality). Anyway, I agree with Simonm223 that this is deviating from the main point raised by 156.47.130.181, which is already being addressed below, so I will not be continuing this argument and I also suggest someone else hats it if they see it fit. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:2D47:6910:4FE1:85BB (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2804:7F4:323D:387D:2D47:6910:4FE1:85BB I would just point out that this (novel) argument seems to imply that all virologists are COI on this issue because if the lab leak were the actual origin, it would discredit all virology. I would point out in reply that, if the moon landing conspiracy theory were the actual explanation for the Apollo program claims, it would discredit NASA, astrophysics, and the aerospace sector in much the same way (and would require a much greater degree of malfeasance in the explanation that would be required of virologists in the lab leak scenario).
But this isn't the way COI is understood on Wikipedia: the criterion is applied to specific sources to determine if there is an individual interest in self-serving statements. By the standard the IP is using, which is much broader, any NASA employee, aerospace engineer or astrophysicist in the 1970s had IMO a much stronger self-interest in the moon landing constancy theory being false than the virologists discussed on this page have in the lab leak hypothesis being false.
Which is all rather besides the point, because we simply do not employ this kind of conspiracy thinking in assessing conspiracy theories on enwiki. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it appears in the "US government and intelligence agencies" section, which is the place for all statements from US govermental institutions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We dont currently mention it, its be excided from the article. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MasterBlasterofBarterTown that is correct, but discussion is underway on this Talk page to establish balanced language to mention it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the article when I made my comment, if it does appear in the article it should be in the "US government and intelligence agencies" section. As this is just another report from a US govermental institution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French Academy of Medicine press release

[edit]

https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/origine-du-covid-19-un-quasi-consensus-en-faveur-de-la-sortie-de-laboratoire_185031

From the release (translated): "97% of the Academy of Medicine voted almost unanimously to say that we believe that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory error and that lessons must be learned from it to take precautions in the future," revealed Professor Jean-François Delfraissy in a press conference of the Academy of Medicine on April 2, 2025. "It is true that as a virologist, I do not see many arguments in favor of the natural emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,"

Please add to article. Jibolba (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without a WP:SECONDARY source to confirm that this press release is important, seems WP:UNDUE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this good enough?
https://www.liberation.fr/societe/sante/origines-du-covid-lacademie-de-medecine-penche-pour-une-fuite-de-laboratoire-20250402_FYJVUIBDIJH3FDJIW72JFQWBK4/
It also presents dissenting opinions. It seems tables are turning on what was once (and still is—especially around here) considered conspiratorial BS. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:1DFC:F7D5:DEA6:9EF6 (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t the sciencesetavenir.fr article secondary source coverage? I don’t think that is the press release itself. Rather, it is an article about the press release. I could be wrong though, my french is not very strong. 128.62.105.1 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to any complete statement(s) from the French National Academy of Medicine. Thank you. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been a public release yet. It is not uncommon for European institutions to go straight to the press with information. Sciences et avenir is very highly regarded on le continent, they are not publishing a fabrication. Jibolba (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the full report published by the Académie nationale de médecine.
2804:7F4:323D:387D:94AE:C945:1ED0:AB70 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the bigger news is that science works by voting now? Is this relevant for the article Science? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fellowship of a national academy voting on a position statement—that's news? Unlike the intelligence agencies they will presumably publish a report the merit of which can be evaluated by the rest of the scientific community. What's the problem? fiveby(zero) 12:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cette deuxième hypothèse est soutenue par un faisceau de faits et d’arguments, sans qu’elle soit étayée par des preuves. Seems possible the intent and gist of the report may not match that of the statement and press release? Best wait and see on this i think. fiveby(zero) 15:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the report itself they seem to incline towards finding a lab leak more likely than natural zoonosis, but I couldn’t to the best of my ability find them stating this explicitly. At least not in the same tone as the statements that the authors gave to the secondary sources above. In any case, this coming from a group of respected virologists/epidemiologists is already a big thing; if anything, authors of the Proximal Origins paper claimed (after subpoenaed) that they had doubts in the first months of the pandemic about the origins but then it became clear to them that natural zoonosis was much more likely. This report goes in exactly the opposite direction. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:94AE:C945:1ED0:AB70 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 1:1 FR>ENG translation of the subjunctive here might convey some form of POV where there isn't one. It is literally like "It is supported by an abundance of facts and arguments, without [that which] [it would/might be* supported] [through some evidence(s)]". This is not necessarily dismissing it as "unproven therefore inconsequential". It is just that French grammar always distinguishes between things that are 'conclusively, materially apparent' and things that are 'implausible/plausible/probable' - 'realized' vs 'unrealized. If anything one might just as well read into it as saying "there's not currently any scientific evidence, assuming any scientific evidence that would prove it exists". Jibolba (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, science doesn’t work by pushing politically motivated justifications in the heat of the moment, nor by ignoring facts or suppressing valid hypotheses. In the absence of data, willingness to cooperate or transparency, science is not done by looking at previous pandemics and saying “this is extremely unlikely because it was never proven to have happened before”. It is done by considering with seriousness and no external pressure or fears all possible hypotheses and investigating them appropriately until a consistent conclusion can be obtained or more data becomes available. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:94AE:C945:1ED0:AB70 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying “this is extremely unlikely because it was never proven to have happened before”. Only “this is extremely unlikely”, with actual good reasons. There is no need to invent bad ones.
On the other side, we get spies telling us "no, this is what happened but we cannot tell you why because it is secret" and now some guys saying "no, this is what happened because we voted on it". About happening it before, the "this new disease is man-made" rumor comes with every new disease. This time it is just more virulent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"On the other side, we get spies telling us "no, this is what happened but we cannot tell you why because it is secret" and now some guys saying "no, this is what happened because we voted on it"
I never read such claims, can you give a source? Apokrif (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I invented the "because" parts, just like the IP did above, to show how stupid their rhetorical tricks are. What I am saying is that all this is superficial. It's just opinions, not based on anything. And if you ask for evidence, you hear that "it will probably never be published" and "only the result is relevant". And the French press release supplement cites "lack of definitive evidence in favor of either" - is the 97% agreement just a gut feeling? That lack of justification is the reason why none of all that would fly in a scientific journal. Which is the type of source this article should be based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks, even on an IP. There is no consensus that sourcing for this article must be restricted to scientific journals as you are proposing. The lab leak theory is both a scientific and political topic, which is why the majority of our sources referenced here are news sources. The French Academy's press release supplement citing "lack of definitive evidence in favour of either" didn't walk anything back in the report, and it too cited lack of evidence for the position of its members. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to cite a reliable source and not assert your own unsupported opinion. 122.3.203.139 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An attack on reasoning is the exact opposite of a "personal attack". We do not have any reliable secondary sources about the French Academy's press release; both secondary sources misrepresent it. And I do not need sources for rejecting bad sources. Please think through your responses more carefully before posting them in the future. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to say they 'misrepresent it'? What? What the hell does Wikipedia bother with secondary sources for if we can just rely on the discretion of you and other editors for analysis? Do you even speak the language?
The Wikipedia rule is to report what the reliable secondary sources say. We have multiple mainstream RSs all saying the same thing.
However, in your mind, the rule doesn't apply here because "Actually they read it wrong. Granted, I didn't read it at all, but it goes against the conventional wisdom of my particular milieu, so these are clearly just philistines".
We are reaching new levels of hubris. This whole article is like a gain of function experiment on Wikipedian sophistry. Jibolba (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the summary of the original article:
Five years after the beginning of the pandemic, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. The hypothesis of a natural origin is opposed to that of a modified virus involved in a laboratory accident in Wuhan, China, the starting point of the pandemic. Knowing the history of the pandemic makes it possible to analyze the major zoonotic risks that persist or even increase and to establish recommendations for epidemiological surveillance and facing the risks related to genetic and dangerous manipulations of viruses. Raising awareness among researchers and students of their scientific and ethical responsibilities regarding the risks of laboratory accidents/incidents is essential. The current context of technological developments in biology, including AI, can lead to serious consequences in the absence of control on their possible impact.
This is the main part of the supplemental press release, which was probably necessary because the original one was misrepresented:
[..] the French National Academy of Medicine wishes to reiterate the spirit and methodology that guided its work and that this report does not claim to resolve an ongoing scientific debate.
The main focus of the report focuses on recommendations concerning the epidemiological surveillance of zoonoses and the prevention of the risks of dangerous virus handling in the laboratory. The report emphasizes the importance of raising awareness of the scientific and ethical responsibilities of researchers regarding biosafety issues and questions related to risky research.
Whether the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonosis or a laboratory accident, both situations raise risks related to viruses that must be better anticipated. It reiterates that the hypotheses of natural transmission via an intermediary animal and a laboratory accident remain open. Its report highlights the lack of definitive evidence in favor of either and emphasizes the need for a rigorous and fact-based approach.
Finally, the Academy emphasizes the urgent need to strengthen the surveillance of zoonotic and epizootic diseases, potential sources of viral emergence, by providing monitoring networks with increased resources.
It also calls for improving biosafety in virology laboratories and promoting a culture of risk and scientific responsibility, in order to effectively anticipate and prevent future health crises.
There is nothing about "97% supporting a lab leak hypothesis". As ScienceFlyer writes below, 97% of the people who voted agreed to approve the report.
We have a page WP:SOURCEWRONG. Also WP:HEADLINES. Read them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once the academy fully releases the details it could be worth adding something in the "Political, academic and media attention" section. I'm sure it will get some media attention that could justify inclusion. It could be used as a general section for all such voting/polling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is now being covered by pretty big sources as relevant [5]. (BFM is France's largest news channel) Seems pretty clearly appropriate to the consensus balance. Just10A (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fairly obvious now this French thing has been twisted by misinformation merchants. Wikipedia wisely waits for decent sources rather than swallowing (and regurgitating) the BS. Bon courage (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Source? Just10A (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Source please. Jibolba (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's abundantly clear that the claim about 97% supporting a lab leak hypothesis was false. Looking at the video of the vote, 97% of the people who voted agreed to approve the report. (67 for, 2 against, 3 abstained, 70 non-voting)
    The report even states:

    This [Lab leak] hypothesis is supported by a body of facts and arguments, without being substantiated by evidence.

    The French National Academy of Medicine has put out a supplemental press release to accompany the report. Translated excerpt:

    In light of the reactions sparked by the publication of its report "From the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to the risks of zoonoses and dangerous manipulation of viruses", the National Academy of Medicine wishes to recall the spirit and methodology that guided its work and that this report does not claim to close an ongoing scientific debate.

    The report focuses on recommendations regarding the epidemiological surveillance of zoonoses and the prevention of the risks of dangerous laboratory manipulation of viruses. The report emphasizes the importance of raising awareness of the scientific and ethical responsibilities of researchers in the face of biosafety issues and questions related to risky research.

    Whether the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonosis or a laboratory accident, both situations raise risks related to viruses that must be better anticipated.

    It points out that the hypotheses of natural transmission via an intermediary animal and a laboratory accident remain open. Its report highlights the lack of definitive evidence in favor of either and emphasizes the need for a rigorous and factual approach.

    Finally, the Academy stresses the urgency of strengthening the surveillance of zoonoses and epizootics, potential sources of viral emergence, by providing monitoring networks with increased resources.

    It also calls for improving biosafety in virology laboratories and promoting a culture of risk and scientific responsibility, in order to effectively anticipate and prevent future health crises

    Translations were assisted by Google Translate and DeepL ScienceFlyer (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice this has been picked-up by science journalist Maarten Keulemans on twitter.[6] So yeah. A useful salutary reminder that we should, per policy, base article on good secondary sources rather than having Wikipedia take the (click)bait from primary/news reporting. In time there may even be some decent secondary sourcing on this incident – who knows! Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sciences et avenir is secondary. Very well respected publication. Jibolba (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sources (not publishers) which can be secondary. News reporting is primary. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just10A provided a news source. I think we're golden as far as adequate sourcing goes. Jibolba (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At some point, the insistence of raising a furore over every single breaking news report that does the usual RSBREAKING level of fact checking, and is neither secondary nor reliable despite repeated insistence otherwise, probably ought to be considered blatant POV pushing and treated accordingly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than casting aspersions on other editors (see WP:NPA), it would be more constructive to focus on the content and provide your own rationale, per WP:FOC. We now have coverage in at least three reliable sources, and we ought to discuss here only how to include the content. 136.239.176.100 (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you counting the two sources that blatantly misrepresented the content as voted almost unanimously to say that we believe that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory error and The Academy of Medicine is leaning towards a laboratory leak among the reliable ones? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources didn't say that, that's a direct quote from a spokesman in the Academy. If you want to say that you believe that the people who made the report are not properly interpreting their own report, that's fine. But to have that in article space would be WP:OR.
    Also, tone down the hostility. Just10A (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to have that in article space. I don't want any of this in the article space because the articles contradict themselves and the clarification. We should wait until secondary sources tell us that those people have found out exactly what they are trying to say and what not. Conspiracy theorists can be happy with a chaotic state of affairs, but an encyclopedia should not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can provide receipts for every single time someone pushed for the use of breaking news sources. They're very easy to find because most of them are new sections. If you consider that a personal attack, feel free to seek a ruling on that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing other editors of "blatant POV pushing" for citing perfectly valid RS is a personal attack. I've yet to see you articulate your argument as to why news sources can't be used here. See WP:NEWSORG. 124.105.187.76 (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a personal characteristic to push for inclusion of breaking news, it is a behaviour, and one I would personally suggest people not engage in because it is a rather poor behaviour at that. NEWSORG is not carte blanche to include everything that's passed through a news publisher's press (literal or metaphorical) as you would no doubt see if you read the rest of that page. Start with the part about "serious inaccuracies". Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for what exactly? Bonewah (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Better secondary sourcing. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include or Wait - It seems most, if not all, of the news reports are unreliable because they contain clearly false information. So waiting for a reliable source is necessary. If you choose not to wait and have to use a source, use the French National Academy of Medicine press release and report as sources. Another consideration is that it seems that the report was mostly agnostic on the issue of origins in an effort to focus on preventing another pandemic, whatever the cause. As such, this report is irrelevant to this page and doesn't need to be mentioned at all. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, definitely not irrelevant because it is a report signed by respected epidemiologists and virologists which basically gives due credit to the lab leak theory, does not treat it as an extremely unlikely event or a conspiracy, and basically puts lab leak and zoonosis at least on the same level of possibility despite there being no evidence available for a lab leak (and no concrete evidence for zoonosis either, I should say). This in itself is very significant, not only for this article but also editorially, as it states very clearly for the ones here who still insist on the contrary that peer-reviewed scientific publications are not the only valid source for this topic and, when evidence is suppressed and no scientific results are possible, other kinds of political/intelligence/social evidence take precedence in relevance for such matters. BTW, regarding the discussion “Protected edit request on 19 March 2025 (CIA Assessment)” above, refusing to discuss with an editor and calling someone from your team to remove the paragraph altogether because you were not happy with how it was going to turn out looks very bad. 2804:7F4:323D:855B:1DCA:60A5:F3F1:1B20 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say the report is "definitely not irrelevant". I'd love a reliable secondary source to discuss the relevance and significance. My assessment that it might be irrelevant was based on the press release, which downplays the relevance of the origins. You say that "respected epidemiologists and virologists [...] basically gives due credit to the lab leak theory" but the report says the lab leak theory is not "substantiated by evidence." As for the discussion of the CIA assessment, your allegations are 100% false. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the report? Instead of extracting parts of a sentence to mislead other editors, go read the report and tell me again that what I wrote above does not adequately represent its position. Those words that you quote are stated, in several passages of the report, under the following line of reasoning: even though the lab leak theory is not substantiated by any evidence (because there isn’t any, thanks to govt blocking which didn’t allow transparent and impartial SCIENCE to be done), it is strongly supported by arguments (so much so that the authors justify their proposal of policies on the very concrete likelihood of the lab leak theory). Do you think that respected virologists and epidemiologists would risk their reputations proposing policies based on a theory that had no reason to be taken seriously? It’s been honestly hard to AGF here and, to avoid disrupting this talk page, from now on I am recusing myself from participating here. 2804:7F4:323D:855B:C9C:99B7:1F2B:491A (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Woof. A few things:
    1. What in the reporting is 'clearly false'?
    2. How does the release 'downplay the origins'? It gives note after note on how laboratories should be more focused on hygiene and security, because, even if the lab leak remains unproven, WIV had all the makings of a place where something like that very well could have happened!
    3.

    "Il y a plus d'arguments pour la deuxième hypothèse (d'origine humaine, NDLR) que la première", a mentionné Christine Rouzioux",

    "Elles ont montré un point important: des expériences d'insertion de séquence dans des virus faisaient l'objet d'un programme de recherche (...) les travaux avaient déjà commencé à Wuhan".

    There is an absence of scientific evidence on both sides. In that absence, people might (as l'Académie is doing) look to things like Circumstantial evidence and Deductive reasoning. Scientific evidence is not some threshold beyond which all epistemology ceases. Jibolba (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include the report, which is a reliable source on what the French National Academy of Medicine thinks. Don't include the claim that 97% of the french academy of medicine thinks lab leak is more likely, which seems to be false. (Rather, it seems like 97% voted to approve a report which says that both hypotheses should be taken seriously but doesn't make any claims about relative likelihood, so far as I can see.) --skeptical scientist (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is even being discussed here exactly? It seems like the Sciencesetavenir.fr article just blatantly lied and purposefully misrepresented what was actually voted on. So what would we even be including from it? Anyone saying "Include" above (not you, Skeptical scientist) just seems to be a misinformation POV pusher from what I can see. SilverserenC 22:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sciencesetavenir.fr was not lying; the report hadn’t yet been published and they were reporting on what the people involved in its preparation were saying and assuming their good faith. One of them said that a 97% approval had been reached for the cause of the pandemic having been a lab leak; that was an overstatement under my reading of the report (even though I would prefer to ask this person to confirm it, were I a journalist, because they were involved in its preparation), but the secondary source is not at fault here. In any case, if a report signed by specialists and authorities on the topic of virology and disease gives the lab leak theory an evaluation of at least “equally likely to zoonosis”, going against what most scientists have been defending (or pushing without proper evidence) for years, that has no relevance for this article and including it is POV pushing? Hardly so, in my opinion. 2804:7F4:323D:855B:1DCA:60A5:F3F1:1B20 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That means we do not have a secondary source for the report, but only a secondary source for rumors about the report. Too little. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That may have been the case for sciencesetavenir.fr (though I side with Palpable below), but several other secondary, reliable sources have picked up on the story of the Académie report without giving prominence to the statements of the co-author and focusing on the contents of the report itself. We just throw all of those in the trash too then? 2804:7F4:323D:855B:C9C:99B7:1F2B:491A (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression per a previous comment that we wouldn't get any more of this but since "secondary sources" have been raised yet again, I would love it if someone, anyone, literally any single person here, acknowledged the fact that we have a policy describing what is and is not a primary, secondary or tertiary source (WP:PRIMARY, etc) and in that policy it is clearly written that breaking news is not secondary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me for bothering thee, but since I was replied to on an unrelated subject, I wanted to refute. Notice that I haven’t manifested my vote or opinion either here or in other discussions in this talk page, and I won’t be doing so to your relief. Le Monde’s article is far from being breaking news and you know it. We have a report by more than qualified individuals favoring the lab leak theory and we have reliable sources reporting on it, discussing it, and even expressing opinions about it (like Libération upset that the report did not tackle the natural zoonosis risk with its propositions). I am well aware of policy. I am also aware of the urges to bend it as an attempt to filter out content that doesn’t align with particular POVs. 2804:7F4:323D:855B:C9C:99B7:1F2B:491A (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I am open to hearing arguments on the matter, and even terrible arguments are better than a total lack of acknowledgement, but "I am right and you know it" is not a good place to start a discussion even if we ignore the (implicit) accusation of bad faith. Asserting that something is secondary, or that it isn't breaking news, doesn't automatically make it so. Make an argument. I assume you know how to do so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that sources like Libération, BFMTV, and Le Monde did not solely state “a report favoring […] and stating […] was approved by […] and person […] involved in its preparation said […] about it”. They actually provide thought and reflection based on the Académie’s report, and provide interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, […] concepts, and ideas taken from the report. I think that is pretty clear by just reading any of them. Therefore, I do not understand how these do not qualify as secondary sources. Now, if what is considered as valid “synthesis” and “interpretation” is a scientific rebuttal or confirmation, or an in-depth long reporting piece debunking it, then yes, these sources haven’t provided it. However, many of the arguments and facts used by the Académie to reach their conclusions are either not scientifically proven due to lack of evidence, or the science done on the available evidence has so far been inconclusive. So it seems like we are once again back to the discussion of what kinds of secondary sources should be considered valid for this article. In any case, I respect the approach of being cautious and waiting, especially given the overstatements given right after the publication of the report. I just don’t agree with the claims that this report or the reporting on it are irrelevant or that they are not appropriately sourced. I’d really like to hear what you have to say about this and I will carefully read it and think about it, but I will leave it to other editors to continue this discussion further instead of me (as I will not be participating here anymore).2804:7F4:323D:8BA8:4FD:30CD:F191:517B (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Breaking news is classified as primary as a matter of policy, not based on contents (tangentially, editorials, op-eds and other opinion pieces are also so-classified, not based on contents). I suppose you could try and argue reliability based on the contents (just to be clear, this is not a recommendation), but whether something is secondary and whether something is reliable are two different questions, even though breaking news is typically considered neither. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The real issue here is that many inexperienced/drive-by editors evidently have little understanding of what an encyclopedia essentially is: a summary of accepted knowledge about a topic. Instead they seem to want some kind of rapidly-responding discourse dashboard. Another mistake these editors make is that their policy-adrift pushes for content have any sway. Thus, much time is wasted. The job here is actually pretty simple: find the best sources (generally scholarly, mainstream, authoritative, independent, and respectably- & reputably-published) and we can digest what they say. Job then done. Bon courage (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So the best characterization of “Le Monde” to you is that it is exclusively a breaking news source? “Le Monde” is a respected newspaper mostly known for its reporting and opinion pieces. No one goes to “Le Monde” or “Libération” as a first source for breaking news. The same applies to the “Le Monde” reference in question: it is simply not breaking news (just claiming breaking news is not allowed by policy does not turn something into it, neither does it make your point any clearer), it is reporting at best and reporting is not classified as primary based on policy. If you want to give this piece of information, which editors are trying to include, time so that things settle, then fine, argue for that, but don’t come painting these sources or references as inadequate or rushed because they aren’t. 2804:18:966:196A:F485:10CF:AAC2:DBB0 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    exclusively a breaking news source ← straw man argumentation. But news reporting is primary. Bon courage (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to argue that it isn't breaking news, but you do actually need to put forward an argument beyond "I am right and you know it". Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If what I wrote doesn’t convince you, so be it. Anyway, the consensus—at least around here—seems to be that it is not breaking news, so if anyone should be trying to put forward an argument, that wouldn’t be me. 2804:18:1903:9E0A:CC69:D79E:E567:F04C (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I'm not saying that all of these articles are bad, I think Le Monde did a reasonably good job given the time constraints, but as a rule breaking news reports are not consistently of sufficient quality, nor are they sufficiently far removed. Policy and guidelines can be overridden in exceptional circumstances, but I see no argument that these are exceptional, and it is somewhat difficult to have a sensible discussion on making exceptions to guidelines when the people wanting the thing to happen don't seem to acknowledge the guidelines even exist. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, indeed and for a WP:CTOP editors need to "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines" and "follow editorial and behavioural best practice". Arguing for building content out of dodgy WP:PRIMARYNEWS ain't that, and repeatedly arguing for it is problematic. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Le Monde, Libération and Euractiv all look like high quality secondary sources for this story. Please WP:AGF and leave it to the closer to determine consensus on how we may use them. 119.111.137.238 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What, in this context, would constitute a secondary source? What would a news source have to do in reporting on the Academie release that would satisfy the WP guideline? Jibolba (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    News reporting is primary. Newspapers are hardly ever secondary sources, except when they do e.g. long-form investigation/analysis pieces, and they are seldom reliable when in that mode. What is needed here is some independent expert analysis of the whole mess. Bon courage (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me, but how is that not exactly what the Academie's release is? Not independent because they are affiliated with the French government? Not experts? Not analysis? Not published in a journal? Everything you list would appear to have been provided. What do you take issue with? Jibolba (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a press release, and part of 'the whole mess' rather than knowledge about it at a remove. Bon courage (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that there are two separate events here which seems to be causing confusion. The Sciences et Avenir article is reporting on both (1) the Academie report which is pretty equivocal on origins, and (2) on Delfraissy's much stronger comment at the press conference that most of the group thinks it was a lab leak. Reliable sources have covered both events, and there does not seem to be "misinformation" in the sources. Le Monde also has an article on the report [10], which they see as favoring lab leak: La lecture du rapport suggère que l’hypothèse de l’accident de laboratoire a les faveurs du groupe de travail.. - Palpable (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The part where I personally have doubts is whether Delfraissy's statements accurately reflect the views of the group. I believe the reporting that he really did say that "97% de l'Académie de médecine a voté quasi unanimement pour dire que nous pensons plutôt que le SARS-CoV-2 est issu d'une erreur de laboratoire," but I think this statement misrepresents what the memmbers actually voted for (accepting the report). So this statement may be misinformation, even if the reporting on it is accurate. --skeptical scientist (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be right and this just shows why we need secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not breaking news. The LeMonde article is a secondary source as they were (presumably) not involved in the creation of the report or commentary at the press conference. This is just garden variety news reporting and i see no reason why at least LeMonde shouldnt be viewed as a reliable source. Bonewah (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inlcude. We have both primary and multiple secondary sources. Secondary sources are reliable and primary source is notable. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. No secondary source(s). Yet, anyway. Bon courage (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are several secondary sources .. you are mistaken. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hitchen's razor applies. None have been presented so far. If some have since appeared, then: citation required! Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Newspaper articles are the textbook definition of reliable secondary sources. Bonewah (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    100% wrong. See WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Pretty shocking to see this in a non-newbie. Bon courage (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. First of all, that is an essay, not policy. Second, nothing in the primary section or that essay applies here as LeMonde is reporting on the release of a report and commentary. They are not eye witnesses, its not breaking news or anything like that. Third, the essay itself says repeatedly that Primary does not equal bad and secondary does not equal good. It further states that "The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does." which, at least i the case of the existence and content of the report, we can. The actual policy page states "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Again, any user can compare LeMonde's analysis with the report itself, so even if the Lemond article is primary it still can be used. Bonewah (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in fact not a mere "essay" but one of our WP:INFOPAGES, written to provide clue. A contemporary news report is a primary source. This is basic. Primary sources may well be "reliable" for what they say (though for this incident many are not), so the question is of weight. Wikipedia article are based on secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NEWSPRIMARY Says plainly at the top that it is not policy. WP:INFOPAGES says plainly it is not policy. It doesnt actually matter, there is no prohibition on using primary sources even if this LeMonde article was a primary source, which it is not. The very essay you cite, WP:NEWSPRIMARY, says repeatedly that primary does not equal bad and you are free to use them. As does actual policy. Bonewah (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How can an explanation of sourcing types be "policy"? This is just information page aimed at editors who are not educated on source status aiming to clue them up, as it's a common error to call news reporting "secondary". As to editors being "free to use" primary sources, this is a misrepresentation of policy. Primary sources may be used with care in certain situations, but the basis of articles must be secondary. Bon courage (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, luckily for us this material is not the basis of this article, but merely material to include, so lets move on to how we should use it. Bonewah (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think any piece of (purported) knowledge is a basis of the article. Primary sources are then useful for touching-in details. But in any case now the argument is no longer that this is a "textbook" secondary source, but the desire to push it remains, the question would be of WP:WEIGHT. In other words, what good (secondary, reliable) sources are discussing this matter to tell us it is weighty enough to merit inclusion without POV-pushing? Bon courage (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hypothetically, what would such a secondary, reliable source look like? In recent weeks, we have gone through an extensive series of what would in any other case be considered RS reporting on this issue. None of which have proven satisfactory due to some particular fatal flaw or other.
    In your perfect world, what does a secondary, reliable, non POV-pushing article on this topic consist of? Bullet points if you wish. Jibolba (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An academic textbook/chapter/article analysing this incident within the lab leak broader context. Bon courage (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an RFC, but yes it seems to me we can add this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declassified DIA Analysis

[edit]

Today, from U.S. Right to Know - US intelligence agency’s classified analysis offers detailed scientific view that COVID-19 may have come from Wuhan lab.

Newly FOIA'd documents from DIA - DIA had proper scientific analysis supporting plausibility of LL. Conflicts with Andersen Proximal Origins paper. Also offers rebuttal of source [164] (an op-ed anyways, no reason to be cited as is). This should be included under the U.S. Intelligence header.

Analysis was not directly attributed, but likely done by DIA and National Center for Medical Intelligence scientists Jean-Peal Chretier and Robert G. Cutlip, who previously authored a similar now declassified paper found by DRASTIC in Aug. 2023 and reported on by Washington Times [11]. Not sure if this one has been adjudicated yet, but should also be included.

Some insight to calm the frequently expressed doubts as to how these Intel agencies are coming to these conclusions. I assumed it was a foregone conclusion that the U.S. security state has access to some pretty top notch researchers. I don't know why anyone would doubt that the U.S. gov does not have a highly motivating interest in knowing that their intelligence info is based in some form of actual relevant evidence. Jibolba (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another nothingburger in a another FRINGE source. We need to build articles on quality, reliable sources. And we have plenty of those. Bon courage (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didja read it? Jibolba (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are reminded this is a WP:CTOP, and trolling questions fall afoul of the standards required. Bon courage (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question was legitimate and not trolling, but I can see that my diction may appear charged. In other words:
Did you read the article and, if so, what leads you to the conclusion that it is "FRINGE"? I have difficulty understanding how anything in the article/declassified documents could be characterized this way.
The term "fringe" seems to have taken on a distorted meaning, wherein the statements of PhD researchers on behalf of the U.S. government are, by some contrivance, fringe. Documents obtained by FOIA are fringe. Jibolba (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More impertinence. When an editor ventures a judgement on a piece, asking back if they've "read it" is trolling or an accusation of impropriety. The web site you linked is chock-full of antiscience misinformation (including long rants on Glyphosate, GMOs, and even fluffing of Russell Brand), so we are not going to be using it, as it falls way below the minimum standard for Wikipedia. This is basic. Bon courage (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to accept a source because other articels on the same platform are bad? What policy is that? Could be useful in another context. Alexpl (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Err, the core policy that says material must be verified to RS (i.e. sources must have a good reputation). We're not going to be using notorious misinformation sites, as Wikipedia doesn't want to become a laughing stock. Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the subjective impression, that other stuff on a platform is "substandard" will not do, especially if written by a different author. Not helpful. Alexpl (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, this is a very well-known antiscience lobby group and so simply not the kind of source Wikipedia uses (the straining on this page to use shit sources when so many good ones have been published, is a wonder to behold!) If you really think USRTK is the kind of "reliable source" Wikipedia should be using, WP:RSN is thataway. Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, their website seems legitimate enough. They aren't listed at WP:RSP, but are mentioned once in the noticeboard archives, with one editor calling them an " an anti-GMO advocacy group" in 2015. Are there any specific pieces you can point to that demonstrate that they are anti-science? Poppa shark (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just need to read it, it's obvious. I notice they were mentioned in the context of LL conspiracy theories already.[12] Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also should note that one of the papers this article you cited uses to justify such a strong preference for natural zoonosis is very flawed. In Pekar et al., first they had reported a Bayes factor of 60 to support double spillover, with a threshold of 10 for significance. Then, after a statistician from DRASTIC pointed out several mistakes in their computer code for running simulations, the corrected Bayes factor went down to 4.3 and they had to arbitrarily lower their threshold down to 3.2 in order to keep the significance of the result and not change their main conclusions in their erratum. Does that seem like serious science to you? Plus, that paper is full of flawed logics and reasoning. Some editors seem to be very quick at dismissing certain kinds of sources, but very slow at looking critically at the sources purported to be “real science”, choosing instead to believe them blindly. 2804:18:1903:9E0A:CC69:D79E:E567:F04C (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just somebody's blog. You need a peer-reviewed source to dispute the statistics in a peer-reviewed paper. Not a substack. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is also just a blog and I was refuting exactly the use of such reference (to invalidate USRTK) because it isn’t up to date and it is misleading. Also, the statistics have already been properly disputed, under peer-review, and the paper had to be fixed with an erratum. See here right at the top, if you don’t believe me. These are not just some fools saying BS on a substack. These are matters still undergoing revision/validation (because any scientist knows peer-review is not an attestation of the correctness and soundness of a paper’s arguments, it is just a starting point and the real validation occurs with time and interest from the community). Once again, very quick to dismiss. 177.173.209.92 (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Science Based Medicine has staff, an editorial policy and all the hallmarks of an actual, you know, online periodical. It isn't some random guy's substack. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Then why don’t we use it as a reference in the COVID-19 lab leak theory article? Maybe you could add it. (It isn’t a random guy. His group actually identified wrong simulations in Pekar and made the authors redo their work.) 2804:18:1903:9E0A:CC69:D79E:E567:F04C (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is used. And used well. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SBM: There is a general consensus that at least some articles on Science-Based Medicine can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probably with attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis.
Not really what @Simonm223 painted it to be, especially for dismissing a self-published substack post by an expert in statistics. 2804:7F4:323D:8F80:C43B:48D9:18B9:8D69 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not the Weissmann substack again. Sheesh, you'd hope editors would have at least a clue about sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could say the same for the skeptical blog you used above. I was obviously not suggesting to push that blog to mainspace, I was using it to show it to you that matters are not that settled in the science of the main papers supporting natural zoonosis, but I rest my case. Keep up the good work. 177.173.209.92 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SBM. But yes, crazy stuff exists on Substack – how on Earth is that relevant to editing Wikipedia articles? Bon courage (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect that an editor with your tenure should need to have WP:RS explained to them but, no, if other articles on that website share medical misinformation then the whole website is unreliable for medical information. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I understand correctly: if a source "share[s] medical misinformation" on other unrelated articles then the whole website is unreliable for medical information. Did I get that right? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
USRTK is not doing any in-house science here. They are reporting on documents they have obtained which were authored by highly respected, mainstream scientists [13][14]. Nothing in this specific article is misinformation. Jibolba (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is basic. The WP:DAILYMAIL publishes accurate content often, but because of its bad content is what Wikipedia calls a "unreliable source" so is never used for anything. Our readers need to have assurance that content here rests on sources with reasonable reputations. Again, when we have scholarly book chapters, expert commentary, and journal articles on this topic, the push to use appalling sources is simply astonishing. WP:POVSOURCING I suppose. Bon courage (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would venture more generally that if a source cannot be relied upon (to, e.g., not publish misinformation), that is in fact the very definition of unreliable (formed from the prefix un-, the verb rely, and the suffix -able, meaning, "not able to be relied upon"). Guidance is available to help determine whether a source (which could be a publisher, creator or specific work) could or couldn't be relied upon. I'm not sure if that was a serious question, but if it was, I hope this answered it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like "Pretty shocking to see this in a non-newbie" [15] and "I wouldn't expect that an editor with your tenure should need to have WP:RS explained to them but" [16] are not appropriate for talk page discussions. They are disrespectful and, in the context of a content dispute, may be construed as WP:PA. 122.3.203.139 (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PEARLCLUTCHING and WP:SOCKING are also best avoided. Bon courage (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in the Political, academic and media attention section along with the FBI, DOE and CIA reports. USRTK is a good RS for an FOIA drop and attribution can be used for their editorialisation. There were several RS [17] [18] [19] covering the Pentagon's DIA's position and the alleged stymieing of its NCMI scientists' report in the US intelligence community. This FOIA confirms the provenance of the Chretien Cutlip paper that was written in response to the Proximal Origins paper. Its a small but significant part of the lab leak story that deserves a mention. 119.111.137.238 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to return to @Bon courage's point above because I think you may have missed it. The secondary source that was presented to suggest this report has any significance was not a reliable source. As such it is not usable for including the report, which is itself a primary source. To determine if the report is appropriate for inclusion you would first need to identify reliable secondary sources that address it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You and @Bon courage have asserted USRTK is unreliable, but there's no consensus on that, and reliability depends on context. In this case, it’s just the publisher of verifiable FOIA docs, not for its editorialising. Other RS have reported on the Chretien Cutlip paper already, but didn't FOIA the paper. 122.3.203.139 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include may help contextualizing. Alexpl (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jibolba this is a report from a biased, unreliable source in support of the "genetically-engineered virus" hypothesis, which is nearly universally regarded by those with relevant expertise as a conspiracy theory. (Belief in the possibility of a lab leak among French doctors, or scientists in surveys, does not imply that they also believe in a bioengineered virus, at least not according to any source I've seen to date.)
The "evidence" presented by "Right to Know" consists of slides from within the DIA in mid-2020. I don't see how any such "revelations" can affect current evaluations of the conspiracy theory, nor do I understand why coverage outside of independent, reliable sources would be a reason to mention this material in any Wikipedia article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many have been dismissive of the statements of U.S. and, recently, German intel agencies on the grounds that they are not based in scientific analysis. These documents demonstrate they were, at least in part. Jean-Paul Chretier is a PhD in Genetic Epidemiology and MD from Johns Hopkins. Robert Cutlip is an MD at WVU. They are both widely published and cited in the major science journals.
Maybe in the context of RS standards, it is reasonable to disregard the USRTK article itself (though USRTK are not deprecated to my knowledge). However, it does not change the veracity of these declassified documents. They can be seen as supplementary to the paper reported on in the Washington Times. Jibolba (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jibolba you appear to be engaged in an interesting, but WP:OR reconstruction of intelligence agencies' assessments of Covid origins. Please don't expect that particular project to have an impact on Wikipedia article text. If reconstructions of intelligence community thinking appear in reliable sources, then and only then can we attribute authority and WEIGHT to the presumptive scientific basis of these assessments. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am hardly breaking new ground: [20] Jibolba (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial you clearly haven't read the Chretien Cutlip paper we're discussing here. It dispels your claim that "genetically-engineered virus hypothesis ... is nearly universally regarded by those with relevant expertise as a conspiracy theory". Chretien and Cutlip are relevant experts and claiming that these NCMI scientists created this "conspiracy theory" in early 2020 is ridiculous. 119.111.137.238 (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Having read through this, I am not seeing reliable secondary sources giving credence to this analysis. I am seeing sources which are unusable for an extraordinary claim by this encyclopedia as per WP:RS. If RS show up at some future point, that's a different story. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does this even add anything? Five years ago a US govermental institution thought that the virus could have been from lab leak, well OK we already have details in the article about US Govermental Institutions thinking the virus could be from a lab leak. This article doesn't need to contain every report or memo that parts of the US government every produced. If the claim is some form of genetic engineering then WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and would need much better sourcing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1st citation caption

[edit]

The caption on the first citation says "see numerous reliable sources since 2023 which support this", referring to most scientists believing a zoonotic origin. However, of the 12 listed sources, 10 are from before 2023 and two [21], [22] are from 2023, and neither of these two seem to reference any scientist's opinion from 2023 or later. So I think the first citations' caption should be changed. 24.126.13.3 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1285292726"