Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46

Most scientist agree (...) from zoonosis - Source?

Where are you getting this from? And what is meant by "most scientists" 51%? 90%? and which scientists? Geologists? Engineers? Social scientists? The provided footnote does not address any of these questions - I've graded middle school essays with better sources. 85.144.0.224 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Refer to WP:NOLABLEAK. TarnishedPathtalk 00:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
It would be true to say most life scientists *say* they support zoonosis. They are lying of course, but it is what they say. Tuntable (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
They are lying of course, but it is what they say
Please restrict your comments here and elsewhere to writing an encyclopedia. This is speculation and conspiracy mongering. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
If you read the footnote, I believe you will find the words "Most scientists studying the origins of COVID-19" in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah... except we later found out that Peter Daszak, the guy who co authored the Lancet group of virologists, ran Ecohealth alliance and was involved in the WIV and organised the funding that likely caused the outbreak in the first place. That piece caused a snowball to start rolling that hasn't really stopped, but was a conflict of interest at best and incredibly fraudulent at worst. It's pages like this one, where the truth is painfully obvious to everyone, yet the media and 'official' sources the the WHO are too afraid to speak out against China for fear of loss of funding/reputation, and it causes ripple effects into Wikipedia and the 'predominance' of sources.
I don't deny that most sources that have ever been written on the topic say that zoonosis was most likely... but if you look at what's been published int he last 6 months it is a different story. Add to that the fact that a lot of scientist opinions have been mischaracterized by media sources.
A scientist may say that they think that Covid19 was not 'engineered' in a lab, and likely represents a spillover from animal to human transmission (zoonosis), but that doesn't mean that the zoonotic event did not happen in a lab. Then the media says that most scientists support "natural zoonosis" as an explanation, excluding a lab leak... It's a mess.
Almost certainly someone messing around with bat coronaviruses at WIV accidentally infected themselves, either with a lab sample or from a live bat kept in the colony there (which incidentally would still count as a zoonotic even, (just not a natural one).
I've lost my faith that Wikipedia can make sense of the mess that sources have tangled themselves into regarding this garbage story, but honestly this article is a travesty. We have no balls to stand up to what is painfully obvious misinformation. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 10:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Finaly ,after 5 years someone is writing the right facts and cicumstances about the possible origin of Sars Cov 2. As veterinarian I fully support this opinion and also lost faith in truth of wikipedia. EilertBorchert (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Surely your expertise removing worms from chihuahuas is of great use here. I hope wikipedia's culture changes to allow such opinions to take precedence over that of high quality, relevant source material. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
wow, snark alert. 65.194.76.18 (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
organised the funding that likely caused the outbreak in the first place You are starting from the assumption that what you want to show is true. This is called circular reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
"likely caused", "look at the new sources!", "scientists afraid to speak up", "almost certainly".
Lovely, and thoroughly meaningless weasel words.
If such "misinformation" was so painfully evident as you claim it is, it would be elementary to show it, but here we are, and all you've got are empty paragraphs full of cliched buzzwords. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I mean... I don't agree with the person above either and they do use flawed logic.... But it's also flawed to say that people would easily respond to "evidence" in the face of a deeply held belief or ideal. ie. It's elementary to prove there is no god. Hasn't changed many people's minds. 65.194.76.18 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
This page is for improving the article "COVID-19 lab leak theory", and refuting bad reasoning in favor of a proposal of certain changes to the article is on topic. Listing other cases of bad reasoning about gods and other stuff is off topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
The following biomedical claims in the article are cited to a primary source (non-medrs) study:

Early human cases clustered around the market, and included infections from two separate SARS-CoV-2 lineages. These two lineages demonstrated that the virus was actively infecting a population of animals in the market, and that sustained contact between those animals and humans had allowed for multiple viral transmissions into humans.

Pekar JE, Magee A, Parker E, Moshiri N, Izhikevich K, et al. (August 2022). "The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2". Science. 377 (6609): 960–966. Bibcode:2022Sci...377..960P. doi:10.1126/science.abp8337. PMC 9348752. PMID 35881005.
Pekar, et al. present their original research, namely, genomic data from early viral sequences, phylodynamic modeling, epidemic simulations, and Bayesian statistical frameworks, and then reported the results in their publication. This is a very obvious primary source document. The claim is biomedical in nature, as it describes epidemiological transmission patterns.
WP:MEDRS states that : Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources. Inserting this claim without proper citation lacks reliability and proper contextualization. Manuductive (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Here are multiple secondary sources I will now add to the article to back up this sentence. Each of these is a secondary source which cites the Pekar article as a primary for this info:
  • Cen X, Wang F, Huang X, Jovic D, Dubee F, Yang H, Li Y. Towards precision medicine: Omics approach for COVID-19. Biosaf Health. 2023 Apr;5(2):78-88. doi: 10.1016/j.bsheal.2023.01.002. Epub 2023 Jan 18. PMID: 36687209; PMCID: PMC9846903.
  • Brüssow H. Viral infections at the animal-human interface-Learning lessons from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Microb Biotechnol. 2023 Jul;16(7):1397-1411. doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.14269. Epub 2023 May 8. PMID: 37338856; PMCID: PMC10281366.
  • Xia X. Rooting and Dating Large SARS-CoV-2 Trees by Modeling Evolutionary Rate as a Function of Time. Viruses. 2023 Mar 5;15(3):684. doi: 10.3390/v15030684. PMID: 36992393; PMCID: PMC10057463.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
FYI @Manuductive, this information already had a secondary citation (Jian_Wang), and thus all of this was likely unnecessary. Primary citations are insufficient if they are ALONE in being the supporting citation for information on wikipedia. When used in combination with secondary citations, there is no issue. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
👍 Manuductive (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Request to restore text on public hearings and Congressional positions

would like to get support to restore the text removed in the edit below. it would restore text on public hearings and on Congressional statements and positions.

Sm8900 (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The diffs would probably be better than just the link, but from my look it all seems fine. Much more comprehensive. Only 1 editor is objecting so far so this seems like a minor issue. Just10A (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
that's a good point; i changed the link, to show the diffs. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I would rather the US politic findings were kept to their own section. I object again to so much prominence of such sources in a global article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
If you want to edit the section to update it for the congressional findings then I would suggest that there should be no net increase in prose devoted to the subject. The subject already has enough content dedicated to it, anything more would be undue.
Ps, not against any reorganisation in principle. TarnishedPathtalk 12:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
The proposed edit in the diff seems an undue level of detail to American positions. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Again, this was not a solely US event, and in fact the USA did not even suffer the majority of deaths, this seems like giving undue coverage of the American perspective on a worldwide event. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
the topic of this article is not the pandemic as an event, it is the debate over the lab leak theory. Sm8900 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes it is about the alleged causes of one, and that makes it a page about the whole world, not just the USA. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Hm? This isn't the Covid-19 article. This is the lab leak article, and a lot of the events (and even the theory itself) involve or implicate the United States. Ymerazu (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
@Ymerazu, exactly. and besides we do not judge whether to include notable material about one country, based on whether all the other countries have been fully represented equally. anyone is free to add data on other countries, any time. Sm8900 (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
and we already more than adequately cover the opinions of the united states and it's agencies. We don't need to add prose to it. It would be undue. TarnishedPathtalk 01:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Tarnished that this diff is WP:UNDUE and america-centric. In order to add such content, we would need to trim other stuff about the congressional report stuff in that section, and frankly I don't think our sources and the overall source landscape supports adding specifically "The final version reiterated the interim position". With all due respect, who cares? In the grand scheme of things, in the 40,000ft view of history, 10 years from now, no one will care. We are an encyclopedia, not a news agency, and we don't need to report every time the congressional hearing on the lab leak published a new version.
Additionally, there is no reason to rename the section as specifically about the US and then to also include the UK details in the US section. That is not how Wikipedia works, we need to be less America-centric, not moreso. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
leaving out the data on the US actions means omitting major parts of the debate and official investigations of this overall issue. Sm8900 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
no one is 'leaving it out', it's described elsewhere in the article already. This diff just reorganizes UK details under a US banner, which doesn't really make sense... — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
well yes, the diff is what I am trying to reverse. if you disagree with this diff, then you are agreeing with me. Sm8900 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
I've already stated that I'm not opposed to reorganisation in principle. My main objection is the dedication of additional prose to the opinions of the US congress. TarnishedPathtalk 01:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not even looking at any diff from here. I've been looking at the page history. This is the diff I was evaluating: [1]
I think we need to make that section either specific to the US, and move the British stuff elsewhere, or make it a general section, and keep the British stuff where it is
If you want to include even more info about the report, then we need to shorten the prior info about it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 05:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
+1, 100% correct. Updating information doesn't necessitate keeping the old information and adding the new so that what we have is a running coverage of the news cycle. TarnishedPathtalk 08:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
+1. If editors want to include details of the final report then a commensurate amount of details on the interim report needs to be removed. We're not hear to provide running news coverage in a completely undue manner. TarnishedPathtalk 01:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Did this end up getting reincorporated into the article? Ymerazu (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
If so, I think it should be removed. It's simply politically motivated statements devoid of scientific rationale. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
We are not trying to establish whether a lab leak occurred in this article. Ymerazu (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
There's no consensus for it as was implemented prevoiusly. So why would it? TarnishedPathtalk 00:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
If you have a peanut gallery of people who think the lab leak is a conspiracy theory and they monitor every single change and comment in this talk page then yes you get that appearance. A few users throwing a tantrum does not mean the material does not belong in the article. Ymerazu (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Review of top quality sources

Hello friends. I went down a rabbit hole tonight and did a PubMed search for "covid laboratory leak" and perused every paper on the first page of the search results, then wrote down my findings. You can read more at User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak#2025 version.

TLDR: Overall, it is my opinion that these papers support zoonotic origin. These papers also say that lab leak is theoretically possible, but that no compelling evidence has been found for it so far. I also reviewed the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, and I believe the lead aligns with the conclusions of these papers and is properly balanced.

It's a bummer that intelligence agencies and the media keep pumping out articles that are so pro-lab leak. I saw one on the front page of AP News the other day. This disagrees with what top scientific papers are saying. I am confident in this statement since I just spent an hour and a half surveying the scientific literature on this.

Hope this helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Not really as this smacks of OR. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Surveying secondary sources to get the WP:WEIGHT of an article right seems different to me than original research. Isn't original research summarizing primary sources? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Isn't it the task of editors to analyze research as it relates to an article? I think it was especially helpful that Novem Linguae recorded their conclusions in an organized way. Ymerazu (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps you could include this survey of expert opinion, the only one I'm aware of: Ackerman, Gary; Behlendorf, Brandon; Baum, Seth; Peterson, Hayley; Wetzel, Anna; Halstead, John (February 2, 2024). "Summary of: The Origin and Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Expert Survey". Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved January 28, 2025.
Some quotes from the summary (the summary links to the full report):
  1. "The anonymous survey included 168 virologists, infectious disease epidemiologists, and other scientists from 47 countries in a geographic sample of both developed and developing countries. This is the first-ever systematic study of expert opinion on the origin of COVID-19."
  2. "The study’s experts overall stated that the COVID-19 pandemic most likely originated via a natural zoonotic event, defined as an event in which a non-human animal infected a human, and in which the infection did not occur in the course of any form of virological or biomedical research. The experts generally gave a lower probability for origin via a research-related accident, but most experts indicated some chance of origin via accident and about one fifth of the experts stated that an accident was the more likely origin."
  3. "The experts mostly expressed the view that more research on COVID-19’s origin could be of value. About half of the experts stated that major gaps still remain in the understanding COVID-19’s origin, and most of the other experts also stated that some research is still needed."
- Palpable (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. But I've focused my essay on WP:MEDRS sources for now. That's one of the easiest ways to filter for top quality sources. Hope that's OK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
It's your essay, of course. Non MEDRS sources do have a place here though given the consensus that origins is not subject to MEDRS. - Palpable (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
As much as I appreciate their compilation of the sources and that as their personal user essay the content is their discretion, it's also linked in the consensus section of this talk page without being consensus as such. I don't know what the conclusion of this is. Maybe it would be best to remove the essay from the consensus box as even users who support the essay acknowledge it is not intended to represent consensus itself. Ymerazu (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
The user essay is linked in multiple RFC closing summaries, and participant !votes. That's why it's included in the box. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Which RFC closing summary links @Novem Linguae's essay? I checked all of those in the consensus box and did not see any. Ymerazu (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I just went through and checked and it looks like you're right. It's just cited frequently in discussions, but not in any closing summaries. I'll go ahead and remove it, but the many multiple RFCs listed there, stay. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
The wording of item four ("The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin") is uncontroversial with the discussions and RFCs listed (and indeed with the best sources) so I think we agree at this point. Ymerazu (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if we want to cite a lot of Grey literature, but it sounds like the results are the same: The sources found in PubMed say that most experts think the lab leak is not the origin, and this website says that most experts think the lab leak is not the origin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
What happened to "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? When it is painfully obvious that the CCP destroyed as much eveidence as possible and prevented any kind of investigation into the WIV, it should be no surprise that we haven't seen a picture of the smoking gun.
Occoms razor tells a different stoyr, and there are mountains of circumstantial evidence that it came from WIV. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 10:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle that states the simplest explanation is usually the best. I am unsure that a huge conspiracy of medical experts to cover up a lab leak is the simplest. Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
When it is painfully obvious that the CCP destroyed as much eveidence as possible and prevented any kind of investigation into the WIV, it should be no surprise that we haven't seen a picture of the smoking gun
The problem with that logic is: If there never was a gun, it should be also be no surprise that we haven't seen a picture of the smoking gun.
Lab leak -> no evidence for lab leak.
No lab leak -> no evidence for lab leak.
This is classic conspiracy theory logic: absence of evidence is evidence of existence. Neither valid logic nor science, nor Occam's razor, works like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
WP:FORUM. Ymerazu (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
That's not what he/others are saying. They're saying: absence of evidence + evidence of not cooperating or spoliation = evidence of existence.
That is not "conspiracy theory logic", nor is it contrary to science and logical norms. In fact, that's where we get widely respected standards like the adverse inference rule in the legal field. Not only are you incorrect, you're exactly incorrect. Just10A (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Even with "evidence of not cooperating or spoliation", it is still unfalsifiable conspiracist bullshit far removed from valid reasoning. Just stop propagating it and WP:FOCUS on what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
We are. If you think that specific logic is "bullshit far removed from valid reasoning" (despite the fact that it's widely understood, accepted, and used by scholars and society), then I'm afraid that's not really relevant to Wikipedia guidelines. That's a problem between you and your institution of choice, not here. (Nor is it grounds for profanity.) The significant commentary on this in RS has already been discussed in other threads. Just10A (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Our own personal reasoning on what might have happened is completely irrelevant to the article, only what is found in reliable sources matter. If they go against our own reasoning and logic then we still stick to reliable sources. Unless those sources directly mentions "absence of evidence + evidence of not cooperating or spoliation (equals) evidence of existence" then it is of no relevance to the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Is it possible that in your desire to fight conspiracy theories, you ended up on the wrong side of this? Ymerazu (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
To determine whether this form of reasoning applies in the present instance, we need to depend on sources about the lab leak hypothesis. What do we have, to date, that follows this chain of logic? Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
In order for you to make such a lofty claim, you'd need to demonstrate that such "spoilation" and whatnot did indeed occur, that such behaviour was irregular, and importantly, that an authoritarian government with a long history of keeping things quiet and not generally cooperating with other global actors is indicative of anything beyond their general global-political posture. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not making the claim. Just10A (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Is anyone? Newimpartial (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
The person he was replying to? Just10A (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
To answer your question, I hope editors can agree that, if the only one making this argument is Insertcleverphrasehere, the argument is WP:OR and not relevant to this article's content. I meant to ask whether anyone else is making the claim. As in RS. Newimpartial (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
BBC:

"From day one China has been engaged in a massive cover-up," Jamie Metzl, a fellow at the Washington-based Atlantic Council who has been pushing for the lab-leak theory to be looked into, told the BBC in 2021. "We should be demanding the full investigation of all origin hypotheses that's required."

[2] Manuductive (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
apparently somebody is, enough to bring it up. Lostsandwich (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Newimpartial, i'm not sure exactly what claim or argument is being made, but one of the best sources here[3] does i think address the issue:

...one should not dismiss outright the possibility that the Chinese government or officials at the WIV may have been trying to obscure their role in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. However, a troubling past record alone is insufficient to buttress the assertion that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a laboratory.

Also

This reversal of the normal burden of evidence manifests in other ways, such as the preference for exotic explanations connecting back to the purported conspiracy theory above banal explanations like simple coincidence, human error, or even even malfeasance in service of a more mundane, genuine conspiracy. The Chinese government denied the existence of wet markets in China, contrary to all available evidence, but this clear attempt at misdirection has attracted considerably less attention than more exotic theories involving malfeasance in the laboratory.

Seems like most editors arguing here are in the wrong as either trying to "dismiss outright" or attempting to "buttress the assertion". fiveby(zero) 22:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
If the lab leak theory were plausible, I'd expect top quality scientific sources to take it more seriously. The medical journals quoted in WP:NOLABLEAK aren't Chinese, so I am not really seeing an incentive to cover up a lab leak.
Chinese lack of cooperation can be explained by Occam's Razor as, the pandemic started in their country. Even though it started through zoonosis, they don't really want the spotlight on the fact that it started in their country. Letting in a bunch of scientists to investigate the origin could result in headlines for years as they piece things together. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
The fact that the journals are not Chinese is neither here nor there; it’s become clear by now and even proven through subpoenaed evidence that scientific coverage has been, from the get-go, plagued by the influence of academic politics. Influential academics and researchers have shown significant resistance towards even considering the hypothesis of a lab leak as something more than a laughable joke. These are the same academics who coordinate groups of PhD students and researchers that, in turn, review papers and decide what gets published or not on top quality journals. No wonder the lab leak theory has not yet received a substantial coverage and has been mostly dismissed in these media. This political influence is completely antagonistic with the principles of science because it is based on fears that scientists have of repercussions and negative impacts on their main activity, i.e., research, if the lab leak theory is treated with at least some seriousness. Giving it a proper scientific treatment could, among many things, (i) damage scientific relations with a country that provides hard-working and very competent PhD students and researchers to many top-notch universities and research centers and (ii) cause significant damage to the image of experimental scientific research as a whole, and specifically research in virology, epidemiology, and even medicine, if a lab origin gets associated, even if incorrectly, to incompetence in keeping safety standards or to clandestine practices involving genetic manipulation of viruses and other biological hazards. Therefore, the incentive not to give coverage to something, at least in academic references, does not come directly from China or, as a matter of fact, any specific nation. It comes from scientists who are so worried about the real-world consequences of their possible future findings that they decide to censor and dismiss some hypotheses beforehand. Science must have a compromise with the truth, and not with its own ability to conduct activities properly. China’s non-cooperation only makes it harder for the truth to be attained and easier for the worried scientists to keep their financing and projects in check. Basing ourselves only on top quality medical journals for a subject that is so sensitive to medical research itself and that involves huge internal political pressures is something that may prevent us from giving a fair and unbiased treatment to this particular topic in an encyclopedia. 2804:7F4:309D:27D3:8DF5:C9A7:DBFA:2E2C (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
This stuff is complex. Most of us are not virology or epidemiology experts. We need experts (sources) to help do this leg work for us. Intellectualism 101 is picking the right sources and trusting them. Wikipedians have figured out over the years that WP:MEDRS sources are very trustworthy. So I choose to trust those rather than assume some conspiracy theory and coverup. This is in line with Wikipedia policies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I do agree with you on the need to trust reliable sources for expert opinions, and it shouldn’t be different for this article. What concerns me is what many respected academics and authors in MEDRS have at stake in dealing with and writing about this particular topic, and if that in turn may lead to a bias in their considerations regarding the lab leak hypothesis. I haven’t found a good solution for this yet; clearly, making use of conspiratorial and unreliable references is unacceptable. An idea would be to find a number of recent and reliable non-MEDRS references mentioning or reporting on the lab leak hypothesis, do some kind of compilation focusing on the “treatment” or “tone” that they give to this hypothesis, and compare it with the “tone” of the recent MEDRS sources you compiled and analyzed. If there is a slight discrepancy, maybe we could favor the non-MEDRS “tone” in the article, supported by RS. If the difference is significant, then we could consider commenting on these two currents, MEDRS and non-MEDRS, in the body of the article itself. These are rough suggestions only, more of a thought exercise in any case given the complexity of the issue at hand. Thanks, 2804:7F4:35A2:3729:2DEA:7986:33E6:DFB (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, this is exactly it. The incentives of some academics in this case are complex as proven by the real events and disclosures. This will give us some pause if we want to have an unbiased article. The article could be greatly improved by asserting the facts from opposing sides with due weight afforded to each as per WP:YESPOV instead of reading like a black and white conspiracy theory article as many readers I've talked to see it now. Ymerazu (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
In February 2020, The Washington Post acknowledged that the lab leak hypothesis is not a "debunked" "conspiracy theory" when they issued a correction that specifically retracted their use of those terms in describing comments by lab leak hypothesis proponent Tom Cotton. An article's title was corrected from "Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked" to "Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus fringe theory that scientists have disputed", with the following statement:

CORRECTION--Earlier versions of this story and its headline inaccurately characterized comments by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) regarding the origins of the coronavirus. The term “debunked” and The Post’s use of “conspiracy theory” have been removed because, then as now, there was no determination about the origins of the virus.[1]

Manuductive (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
It is not clear what WEIGHT a newspaper correction from early 2020 should have in determining article content for us, given the preponderance of sources that are both more recent and of higher quality. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
OK, but it should at least put to rest any of the editors' arguments on this talk page that the lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory. Manuductive (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
We should set aside more recent, higher quality sources discussing lab leak conspiracy theories because a newspaper issued a correction back in 2020, stating that there was no determination about the origins of the virus at that time? I don't think that's the way wp sourcing works. Newimpartial (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
You have people in this talk page very recently calling the article's subject a conspiracy theory. It's worth addressing. Ymerazu (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
What editors write on this talk page is far less important than what is in the article. The article doesn't say that the possibility of a lab leak is a conspiracy theory only that there are many conspiracy theories about there being a lab leak. That there are many conspiracy theories about this subject is well documented, and they need to be addressed in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Based on position close to the top and the amount of hedging, the article gives much more weight to the conspiracy theories (2nd paragraph, 1st sentence) than it does the fact that it's a viable epidemiological scenario ("the WHO's director-general said the report's conclusions were not definitive" - 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence), ("some scientists agree a lab leak should be examined" - 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence). Manuductive (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
You are correct that the conspiracy theories are not addressed until the second paragraph, that's because the entire first paragraph is devoted to this not being a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are mention in the second paragraph, and as you point out more space about it not being a conspiracy theory is found in the third and fourth paragraph. So one paragraph of the four paragraph lead is directly about conspiracy theories, which are very prominent and have been reported on extensively, and the others mostly deal with the non-conspiratorial details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
In what sense is the "entire first paragraph" devoted to the lab leak not being a conspiracy theory? Every sentence after the first is shooting down the theory. Ymerazu (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
We obviously have very different interpretations of what is written. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, rereading the lead and your comment I see the disconnect. Why do you believe that stating that a lab leak is unlikely, and not the general opinion of scientists, is stating that the lab leak is a conspiracy thoery? It's handling the subject as a real thing and contextualising it as reported by secondary sources. The lab leak is unlikely to have been the cause and is a minority believe amongst scientists, but there is absolutely nothing in the first paragraph saying it's a conspiracy thoery. Handling the lab leak as a minority view is in no way the same as saying it's a conspiracy theory. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Let's have something, anything, in the opening paragraph that states why the lab leak theory is significant. "A significant minority of scientists favor the lab leak" (see either of the two studies elsewhere in comments, or I can dig them up). "Intelligence agencies in multiple countries have released reports favoring a lab leak". Ymerazu (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I really don't think it's needed, the correct context for a lableak is that it's an unlikely scenario and that's how it's handled. As I've said many times I think we should be cutting excessive use of the opinions government agencies not adding them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I entirely agree. US Government agencies, the Atlantic Council, and literal spies are not the sorts of sources we should be using to assess the origins of a novel disease. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
We aren't! We aren't assessing the origins of a novel disease. That is not our job. Ymerazu (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
The fact that the lab leak theory is a significant minority scientific viewpoint is hugely relevant for why this article exists at all and why community consensus on this project has not concluded it a conspiracy theory. It belongs in the lead. Ymerazu (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
It is in the lead and doesn't say it's a conspiracy theory, but rather handles it as if it is a minority view just as it should. We obviously disagree but saying the same thing again will only get the same answer again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
It is not in the lead. What is in the lead in paragraph four is "some scientists agree a lab leak should be examined as part of ongoing investigations". This is not the strongest statement that can be made from the sources we have about lab leak proponents and shoving it down into paragraph four of the bloated lead is a disservice to the subject. A significant minority of scientists favor the lab leak. If we accept the GCRI paper we can say that a majority of relevant experts "indicated some chance of origin via accident". Ymerazu (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
A significant minority
A significant minority viewpoint is exactly one that belongs in the lead, in paragraph four. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes the article correctly contextualises the sources, it is a minority view that hasany conspiracy theories built around it. The current lead states this well, making a stronger statement is not warranted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
The first paragraph does not specify that it's a minority scientific view. It describes it as an "idea" and then gives the arguments for zoonosis. Maybe the reader is expected to read between the lines that this is the equivalent of saying that it's a viable hypothesis? But I don't read it that way and I don't think that's a very reasonable approach, and if that's the intention then we should just come out and say it in clear language. Manuductive (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
You can't address recent, reliable sources that identify conspiracy theories by citing older newspaper corrections. The older, lower-quality sources don't "address" anything relevant to this article. Newimpartial (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Th article could be greatly improved by asserting the facts from opposing sides with due weight afforded
Of course it "could" be. Could doing a whole lot of heavy lifting here and relies on there being actual "opposing sides" instead of just a mountain of material and a bit of (usually misread) fluff. The "opposing sides" are not equal and they do not need to be treated as such. Lostsandwich (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
If you carefully read my comment, I said to treat each with due weight. The community decided long ago that this is not a conspiracy theory article and the public facts since then have supported that consensus. You don't have to like or agree with this but the article would be more serious if it reflected the best sources in its content and tone. Ymerazu (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Based on the surveys of scientists, the weight for each viewpoint should be about 80% for zoonosis and 20% for a lab leak - so four to one, in terms of likelihood. I find that that is very close to what this article (and the Covid origins article) communicate. There are conspiracy theories based on the lab leak hypothesis, and this article discusses those, but it doesn't say that the lab leak hypothesis is inherently conspiratorial. Of course some editors on this Talk page have argued that because there is a conspiracy therefore a lab leak must have taken place, but (fortunately) this line of thinking is not reflected in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
It's always interesting to watch how all these continued claims of malfeasance and "narratives" do so without any kind of supporting material and seem to rely solely on the posture of persecution. Hidden knowledge seems to hold considerable value over demonstrable fact and that's why we only ever get whispers and insinuation.
"The lab leaks theory has not yet received a substantial coverage and has been mostly dismissed in these media" because there is no reason to.
" Giving it a proper scientific treatment could"
This is phrased, again, to suggest that anyone examining already has been inappropriate. I won't deign to demand this user's scientific credentials, but dismissing a significant volume of expert opinion as inappropriate or unprofessional doesn't make a strong case. It's been what, half a decade now? Everything related to the circumstance has been scrutinized by umpteen different agencies with different values, and to-date, all of the strongest evidence indicates "no lab leak" and virtually everything else says "lab leak unlikely".
As demonstrated on this very talk page, time and time again, when asked to demonstrate otherwise- crickets. This is the same as it's been for years. Absolutely nothing of substance, only stern promises of coverups and conspiracies. Lostsandwich (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
There is no reason to discuss this theory and further investigate it according to whom? To the people who feel threatened by eventual consequences of their actions or negligence? This article refers to a theory about the origins of a virus that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Such theory has not been debunked, neither has a single strong piece of evidence of natural spillover been found, and all indicates this situation will not be changing anytime soon. The role of science is to discuss everything in a transparent manner and, if certain theories are completely ridiculous and unreal based on concrete evidence, they are discarded and life goes on. In the case at hand, we currently have no strong evidence supporting a natural spillover origin; all we have are very weak studies supporting their views on probabilistic analysis of previous natural origin events (not considering they could simply be independent of COVID) or, even worse, studies supporting natural origin based on samples of viruses found on stalls at the Huanan Seafood Market that happened to also contain genetic material of certain species of mammals (as if the virus could not have come from a person in the first place, who then contaminated the surroundings of the animals). Therefore, we are not in a position to be making categorical claims like you are doing, let alone be mocking people with diverging opinions.
Regarding your request for proof, it does not make sense to request it if you cannot present anything significant supporting the natural spillover while still defending the superiority of one theory with respect to the other. Surely the papers like the one I previously cited about the stalls are full of indications that they believe a natural spillover happened, but try to read them a bit more critically and you will see that there is nothing there that scientifically supports a natural spillover in any way. At the moment, there is simply no strong piece of evidence supporting either side. Yes, many scientific papers have been claiming there is “high probability of a natural spillover”, but these are nothing but mere speculations based on previous independent events or on findings that do not lead to anything concrete. It surprises me that these studies are enough for many editors here to treat the lab leak theory as a conspiracy, as some form of persecution, or as something scientifically less important or credible than the natural spillover theory. I hope that the policy of Wikipedia takes into account the contents of the research being cited and not only the reputation of the journals where it is published.
I additionally note that my previous reply was clear and direct; I was not suggesting or implying anything. Concerning my scientific credentials, you do not need to go very far to find people with very good ones agreeing with my previous reply. Finally, my goal was to contribute to making the tone of this particular article more adequate 5 years after the start of the pandemic. If Wikipedia policy and guidelines support the article in its current form, so be it. Then, until science corrects itself and addresses its clear conflict of interest in treating the subject of the origins of the virus, which may take decades, the article will remain, in my opinion, misleading. Regards, 2804:7F4:35A2:3729:95E:B42B:29EE:CB86 (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Original research by editors is not how we determine article content on Wikipedia. We follow reliable sources - so we simply cannot, by policy, concede to the logic set out here. Please see WP:NOTTRUTH, as well. Newimpartial (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Please read again my previous replies to this discussion and you will see that I did not claim that we should start referencing unreliable sources or writing the article based on our own beliefs of the matter. All I said is that this particular article requires a lot of CARE because of the evident and obvious conflict of interest that many MEDRS (and some RS) and their authors have with the subject of the origins of this virus. In no way I proposed we simply disregard all reliable source references and start writing texts out of our own opinions; instead, I claimed the importance of RS other than MEDRS to this matter (which seem to be repeatedly ignored by editors trying at all cost to disregard any RS reference that goes against their own personal agenda of not giving any kind of serious treatment to the theory this article is about). I even referenced a recent letter from a respected scientist that brought attention to this conflict of interest issue; and many other references in this talk page, most of which are secondary and from RS, should have their place guaranteed and respected in this article given this conflict of interest and the humongous political repercussions of the topic at hand. We are not writing an article about a distant star or a species of macaw here, and I hope that sensitivity required to address the choice of references, especially given the conflict of interest I once again underline, is clear. I will rest my case for now. Thanks, 2804:7F4:35A2:3729:75EE:85E:EF76:1500 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
The letter that you cite is not a reliable source, and both of your recent comments put forward a view (that the scientific literature on Covid origins cannot be trusted because of the COI of scientists) that is, at best, WP:FRINGE in relation to the highest quality sources we have available on this topic.
Also, when you express your hope that wikipedia takes into account the contents of the research being cited and not only the reputation of the journals where it is published, you seem to be advocating a form of source analysis, I believe, that most editors regard as WP:OR and out of scope for the project. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I note, saying something is wrong is not saying it is fringe, saying most people think something is wrong is not saying it is fringe, us saying "It is fringe" is saying it is fringe. We do not say it is fringe in the lede, and in fact only use the word once as a header to a section about specific fringe theories. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/16/tom-cotton-coronavirus-conspiracy/

"Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24 § Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPathtalk 12:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Second lead paragraph phrasing

The survey and sources above are helpful, and show that we need to be careful not to give lab leak theories false parity with the zoonosis theory, particularly given the politicisation of the issue in the US. I think most of this article does a very good job of this. However, I'd like to draw attention to a couple of specific sentences in the second lead paragraph. I think these sentences are poorly worded, with the result that they come across as trying to present an argument against lab leak theories, rather than relay facts:

"Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories. Central to many is a misplaced suspicion based on the proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), where coronaviruses are studied. Most large Chinese cities have laboratories that study coronaviruses, and virus outbreaks typically begin in rural areas, but are first noticed in large cities. If a coronavirus outbreak occurs in China, there is a high likelihood it will occur near a large city, and therefore near a laboratory studying coronaviruses.

I'm not saying we need to avoid calling "most scenarios" conspiracy theories. This is well sourced. I'm suggesting we look at better phrasing for the 3 sentences that follow, and consider whether it is all necessary given that this is the high level overview. Can it be shortened to 1 sentence, or perhaps rejigged into the preceding paragraph (which would require more restructuring)?

Specific issues with the current phrasing: "Central to many" ... what? (Scenarios or conspiracy theories?) Presumably theories, but the fact there are many virology labs in cities is not itself proof that most scenarios are conspiracy theories, and you could easily misinterpret these sentences as saying this.) "Misplaced suspicion" doesn't seem the best possible wording either. The reason suspicion is misplaced is generally overemphasis on location given the lack of evidence of anything abnormal occurring in the labs, and the weight of evidence in favour of zoonosis, things already stated in the first paragraph, not just the location of the labs. I think we can find a better way of structuring this, and perhaps this will help our lead sound more detached and impartial in the process. Jr8825 • Talk 00:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Simply changing it to be Central to many of the conspiracy theories... may clear many of the misconceptions, but it is slightly redundant given that 'conspiracy theory' appears in the preceding sentence. Maybe they could be merged so noone can misinterpret the point.
Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories, central to many of those theories is a misplaced suspicion based on the proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Most sources link the conspiracy theories to the proximity of the Wuhan lab, so I don't think mentioning that is undue. The sentence isn't arguing that that proximity makes the lab leak possibility a conspiracy theory, it's saying that proximity is the cause of many conspiracy theories (it could have been leaked from a lab elsewhere and Wuhan was just the first place it started to spread). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "Most large Chinese cities have laboratories that study coronaviruses, and virus outbreaks typically begin in rural areas, but are first noticed in large cities. If a coronavirus outbreak occurs in China, there is a high likelihood it will occur near a large city, and therefore near a laboratory studying coronaviruses." is needed in the lead. It's all true, but could just be mentioned later in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Whilst it may be technically true, it's also misleading. It's not controversial that the WIV is a world leading centre for bat virus research. The paragraph implies that Wuhan is nothing special and that there are labs like this all over China. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Only for people with poor reading skills or reasoning skills, because the wording is "Most large Chinese cities", not "all over China". Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
No need to resort to personal insults please. There are large cities all over China. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
The virus could have come from a lab leak in Houston. You don't become immediately infectious, and after a flight across the Pacific you could still go out for the evening. Of course that's just supposition, just because something is possible doesn't make it likely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I think that is a very significant point, because it demolishes one of the key lab leak truthers' arguments. I think it should stay in the lead. TarnishedPathtalk 10:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
You're probably right. The main issue with discussing the possibility of a lab leak has always been the bullshit conspiracy theories made up about it. Any discussion about it or the risks involved in virus research quickly devolve into nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per the instructions on starting WP:RFCs given at WP:RFCNEUTRAL:

The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" There is no actual rule saying that editors who start RfCs must make their initial explanations look like they are responses to the question (e.g., by placing them inside a ===Discussion=== subsection) or otherwise making them less prominent.

If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the initial statement or question, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page or at the Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise.

This RFC falls a very long way away from those instructions and so I'm closing this malformed RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 05:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)


This article began in early 2021. Within two weeks (at COVID-19 misinformation), an RfC was held to determine whether the lab leak theory should be called a "minority, but scientific viewpoint" or a "conspiracy theory". (No consensus was found.)

Since then, many scientists have weighed in on the issue, but intelligence agencies have, as well. The CIA and the FBI under Joe Biden have both publicly announced that they consider the lab leak to be the most likely possibility (the CIA is mildly confident, the FBI moreso). This week, the German spy agency has been reported by Reuters to have a fairly high level of confidence that the virus came from a lab.

How, then, should the lab leak theory be addressed, in both the lead and the body of this article?

Status Quo. Keep essentially the same:

The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim is highly controversial; most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis ... similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history. Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals ... There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic ... Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories. Central to many is a misplaced suspicion based on the proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), where coronaviruses are studied.

2. Treated as at least equally likely. Change the wording to reflect a (relatively) higher likelihood of the virus having in fact leaked from a laboratory: perhaps something like

The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim has been hotly debated over the years since the initial outbreak of the virus. Initially, many scientists believed that the virus had spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis ... similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history. However, multiple intelligence agencies have since asserted, with varying levels of confidence, that a leak is in fact the most likely scenario to have occurred. The lab leak theory was initially criticized and dismissed by some as a conspiracy theory due to its contravention of the initial scientific consensus; however...

3. Somewhere in between, perhaps something like

The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim, while initially rejected by most scientists, has since been considered to be at least somewhat likely by the FBI and CIA. Initially, many scientists believed that the virus had spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis ... similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history. The lab leak theory was initially criticized and dismissed by some as a conspiracy theory due to its contravention of the initial scientific consensus; however...

Responses

  • Treated as at least equally likely - it has been five years since the initial papers came out in favor of a zoonotic origin, and every year we get new reason to believe that the initial, rushed consensus was flawed.
First, there were clear conflicts of interest in play that compelled certain scientists in early 2020 to state that it clearly was a zoonotic origin... with far more public confidence than what they displayed in private. And the sources bear that out--our article on the Lancet letter (COVID-19) actually gives a pretty good synopsis.
Second, in the past two years, three different highly respected intelligence agencies each determined that a lab leak was more likely than a natural origin. They had no apparent political reason to do so; indeed, China's belligerence at even the hint of a suggestion that the lab leak theory might be true has clearly chilled discourse around the idea. But Biden's FBI and CIA as well as German intelligence now concur. Which source is more likely to be reliable: ones with a very large financial incentive to make you think it's a natural origin, and who are on the record as having exaggerated the certainty of a natural origin, and who made their assertions mere months after the virus surfaced... or the biggest intelligence agency in the world, alongside the largest national police force in the world and the intelligence agency of a
Finally, it's good to remember why the initial article read the way it did. In 2020 and into early 2021, the main public proponents of the lab leak theory were... *gasp* conservative Republicans. And since they were routinely getting excoriated (generally for very good reasons!) for all sorts of crazy things they were saying around that time, it was quite easy to assume that the lab leak theory was also just another crazy conspiracy theory. However, a broken clock is still right twice a day; just because Trump says something doesn't automatically mean it can never be true.
I think it's time to update this article. It's not 2021 anymore and we don't need to be trapped to the same perspective that we had before all this new information came out. I strongly urge us to rewrite this article to reflect the fact that, based on all the evidence we now have, there's reason to believe that COVID-19 may very well have originated in a laboratory; this article should cut out snide remarks like "Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories" or "misplaced suspicion". Red Slash 04:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Daft RfC; close and trout OP. It is not up to Wikipedia to take a position on what is "likely", just to report what the WP:BESTSOURCES say. This just seems to an attempt to re-run previous RfCs to privilege cherry-pickings of one or two "intelligence services" over the preponderance of those sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Most RfCs on this article are quite old--and the intelligence developments are significant so reassessment is warranted. SmolBrane (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No Mention of German spy service BND suspecting the theory to be true?

See above. We don't need multiple sections on the same topic. Bon courage (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I am new to this editing thing and I would just like to now why it isnt worth to use one sentence or two for the german spy serviec DNS (Bundesnachrichtendienst) giving this theory a 80-90 percent chance to be true? [4][5] Thanks PearLover89 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected

Due to the edit war, I have fully protected the article for a week. Please do not comment in this section unless it is something about the protection. Instead, please continue the discussion above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Problematic sentence and edit request

The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic, Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and this very closeness has made it easy for conspiracy theories to take root suggesting the laboratory must be the virus' origin.

This sentence, although quoting a source on conspiracy theories surrounding the virus, seemingly violates point 1 of the "current consensus". I would suggest a rewrite of the sentence attributing the quote to the relevant source inline, in particular moving the name of Stephan Lewandowsky into that sentence. It's also unclear to the casual reader of that paragraph that Lewandowsky is a psychologist, rather than a biologist.

I would suggest something along the lines of

The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic, Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. According to Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist specialising in public misperceptions of science, this very closeness has made it easy for conspiracy theories to take root suggesting the laboratory must be the virus' origin.

Lewandowsky's full name can then be de-wikified and shortened in the later sentence.

Park3r (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I had similar concerns a while back and started a thread about maybe making some graphics (or using some open ones from this paper or this one). I wrote that by car, the distance is 17.6 km (10.9 miles) between The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the market. They're separated by a river. The Wuhan CDC is 4.3 km (2.7 miles) from the market. ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
It is well sourced and I would suggest you read the previous discussion on this that SF linked. TarnishedPathtalk 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Fuck that RfC, votes by editors can't override what is well established in the sources. There are "conspiracy theories" surrounding a laboratory origin, well documented by multiple quality sources. That's what the source says, one of the highest quality sources for the article (also Stuart Neil is one of the authors), and more are available.
The only problem i see is the inclusion of Wuhan Center for Disease Control in the sentence. Far as i am aware there are not really conspiracy theories concerning the CDC though there has been some speculation, most notable from DOE, that it could be a vector for entry of the virus into Wuhan through infection by field sample collection. Probably should just stick to WIV in the sentence. fiveby(zero) 01:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC - please don't close this if you are already WP:INVOLVED in this discussion!

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per the instructions on starting WP:RFCs given at WP:RFCNEUTRAL:

The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" There is no actual rule saying that editors who start RfCs must make their initial explanations look like they are responses to the question (e.g., by placing them inside a ===Discussion=== subsection) or otherwise making them less prominent.

If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the initial statement or question, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page or at the Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise.

This RFC falls a very long way away from those instructions and so I'm closing this malformed RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 02:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)


This article began in early 2021. Within two weeks (at COVID-19 misinformation), an RfC was held to determine whether the lab leak theory should be called a "minority, but scientific viewpoint" or a "conspiracy theory". (No consensus was found.)

Since then, many scientists have weighed in on the issue, but intelligence agencies have, as well. The CIA and the FBI under Joe Biden have both publicly announced that they consider the lab leak to be the most likely possibility (the CIA is mildly confident, the FBI moreso). This week, the German spy agency has been reported by Reuters to have a fairly high level of confidence that the virus came from a lab.

How, then, should the lab leak theory be addressed, in both the lead and the body of this article?

Status Quo. Keep essentially the same:

The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim is highly controversial; most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis ... similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history. Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals ... There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic ... Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories. Central to many is a misplaced suspicion based on the proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), where coronaviruses are studied.

2. Treated as at least equally likely. Change the wording to reflect a (relatively) higher likelihood of the virus having in fact leaked from a laboratory: perhaps something like

The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim has been hotly debated over the years since the initial outbreak of the virus. Initially, many scientists believed that the virus had spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis ... similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history. However, multiple intelligence agencies have since asserted, with varying levels of confidence, that a leak is in fact the most likely scenario to have occurred. The lab leak theory was initially criticized and dismissed by some as a conspiracy theory due to its contravention of the initial scientific consensus; however...

3. Somewhere in between, perhaps something like

The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim, while initially rejected by most scientists, has since been considered to be at least somewhat likely by the FBI and CIA. Initially, many scientists believed that the virus had spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis ... similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history. The lab leak theory was initially criticized and dismissed by some as a conspiracy theory due to its contravention of the initial scientific consensus; however...

(Note: A previous RfC on this topic was summarily closed by an editor who strongly prefers the status quo (and who has made several edits elsewhere on this talk page to that end). He called it a "biased" RfC without providing any evidence or explanation of bias. I have therefore proposed the RfC again, and would request it to stay the full 30 days, and would certainly ask for any closing editor to be someone who has not already publicly shown a clear point of view on the topic.) Red Slash 01:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Responses

  • Treated as at least equally likely - it has been five years since the initial papers came out in favor of a zoonotic origin, and every year we get new reason to believe that the initial, rushed consensus was flawed.
First, there were clear conflicts of interest in play that compelled certain scientists in early 2020 to state that it clearly was a zoonotic origin... with far more public confidence than what they displayed in private. And the sources bear that out--our article on the Lancet letter (COVID-19) actually gives a pretty good synopsis.
Second, in the past two years, three different highly respected intelligence agencies each determined that a lab leak was more likely than a natural origin. They had no apparent political reason to do so; indeed, China's belligerence at even the hint of a suggestion that the lab leak theory might be true has clearly chilled discourse around the idea. But Biden's FBI and CIA as well as German intelligence now concur. Which source is more likely to be reliable: ones with a very large financial incentive to make you think it's a natural origin, and who are on the record as having exaggerated the certainty of a natural origin, and who made their assertions mere months after the virus surfaced... or the biggest intelligence agency in the world, alongside the largest national police force in the world and the intelligence agency of a
Finally, it's good to remember why the initial article read the way it did. In 2020 and into early 2021, the main public proponents of the lab leak theory were... *gasp* conservative Republicans. And since they were routinely getting excoriated (generally for very good reasons!) for all sorts of crazy things they were saying around that time, it was quite easy to assume that the lab leak theory was also just another crazy conspiracy theory. However, a broken clock is still right twice a day; just because Trump says something doesn't automatically mean it can never be true.
I think it's time to update this article. It's not 2021 anymore and we don't need to be trapped to the same perspective that we had before all this new information came out. I strongly urge us to rewrite this article to reflect the fact that, based on all the evidence we now have, there's reason to believe that COVID-19 may very well have originated in a laboratory; this article should cut out snide remarks like "Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories" or "misplaced suspicion". Red Slash 01:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pinged here by the bot, and glad to see it was closed as malformed; that was the right call. Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Just a note that as an editor who hasn't commented on this page since nearly 2 months ago, and who's only comments which really relate to the specific RfC question were about our sourcing standards, that I also endorse the closure of both these RfCs. This doesn't mean there can't be an RfC on the issue but it needs to be more neutral and workshopped more. Notably if there is merit for 3 proposed wordings, these or at least the 2 proposed wording change options should be discussed among editors before hand so that editors are reasonably satisfied these are the best options to present to the community. RfCs which have proposed wordings where few editors even agree they're the best options are generally a disaster since editors then need to propose new wordings which are often missed by some participants. (Existing editors may still miss stuff and participants may come up with better stuff, that's part of the point of RfC. However it still generally works far better if as far as possible, existing editors come up with their best RfC question including any proposals. Especially in cases where it's both highly contentious and complex.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I would add that while there may be merit to an RfC, remember that another part of RfC before is to confirm you cannot come to some sort of consensus without an RfC. This means there should be sufficient discussion to establish that which I'm not convinced has been the case. Notably since there is an existing discussion/informal RfC on including the BND's assessment, it might make sense to resolve this before an RfC on the wider point since the inclusion or exclusion of the BND's assessment might make a difference in the wider discussion over what to mention about these various claims, including in any RfC if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry I knew there was one more thing I wanted to say then for the life of me couldn't remember it until now. Besides it be confusing and easy to miss when better proposals and wording are only discussed with the RfC when they could have easily been resolved before the RfC by involved editors, it's also just off-putting and discouraging to any would be uninvolved editors to come to an RfC and find obvious issues that should have been resolved. Or to find existing editors still quibbling on whether there are are wording problems or might be better options than the proposals put forward in the RfC. Or any other bickering caused by editors not feeling there was satisfactory discussion before the RfC was started. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there significant new material in 2024/early 2025?

I added a 16 Mar 2025 NYT opinion by a sociologist to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Sources/ScholarOpEd. My impression is that there are some new sources during 2024 and early 2025 that don't seem to have contributed much to the en.Wikipedia overview. I won't try to guess whether these are strong enough to shift the current Wikipedian consensus, but adding recent missing sources here to the talk page lists of sources would be useful. Boud (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot of material from 2020 onwards that is missing from the article, e.g. on biosecurity in Wuhan. Of the more than 100 indications discussed in Germany , some are included in the german article German Wikipedia.The English article argues primarily against the laboratory hypothesis - without evidence (only with opions) - in fact all indications were excluded or or branded as a conspiracy theory. Basically, the whole article needs to be completely revised. Empiricus (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The second reference it uses very clearly states that "The vast majority of the experts express the belief that a natural zoonotic event will likely be the origin of the next pandemic", yet only mentions in the article that 20% "assume a research-related accident" which is cherry picking. The lead of the German article is very unbalanced, and not something that this article should emulate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The 2023/2024 Florence Débarre statement, that there is no absolute proof for a Zoonosis, as source for this pandemic, is pretty hard to beat. Same applies for the lab-leak theory - unless somebody comes forward and says "I am responsible". Alexpl (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
brief mention in the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 based on the news blurb from Nature. I don't like how either article is organized so don't have an opinion on inclusion but pretty significant and not mentioned here. fiveby(zero) 15:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
There is still no strong evidence for the zoonotic origin, despite multiple investigations. I don't know if the study above mentions that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, where coronavirus experiments took place - is only 280 m away from Wuhan Market ? Empiricus (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
As far as evidence goes, that is as much as you can get. It´s "strong", but not irrefutable. Alexpl (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_45&oldid=1286195006"