Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 46

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

Secondary coverage of expert survey

Here's secondary RS news coverage of the expert survey.

Enserink, Martin (February 6, 2024). "Virologists and epidemiologists back natural origin for COVID-19, survey suggests". Science. Retrieved January 31, 2025.

  1. "On average, respondents assigned a 77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario, and 2% to the “other” category. One-quarter of respondents seemed to be very sure about a zoonotic origin, giving it a probability between 96% and 100%."
  2. "Only 12% of respondents said no further studies are necessary. Thirty-seven percent said “some” additional research is needed, and more than half—including 43% of virologists—said studies should continue because “major gaps” remain in the investigations done so far."

This coverage actually breaks things down in a more useful way.

  • the majority of scientists favor natural zoonosis but are not certain.
  • "One-quarter of respondents seemed to be very sure about a zoonotic origin"
  • lab leak is another significant minority view, held by one fifth of respondents.

In other words, Wikipedia agrees with the experts that natural zoonosis was the most likely origin, but Wikipedia's level of certainty is actually a minority view. - Palpable (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason you've opened another section for the same survey? the last comment in the other section was only four days ago, so there's no need to split the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
This is a different and better source. The other section has become a back and forth and I assume most people are no longer reading it. - Palpable (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry your right, different survey. I was caught because of how similar the results and the conclusion are. To paraphrase "Most experts do not believe that the virus originated in a lab leak", which the article captures quite well. Lab leak is the minority scientific view, most experts think the virus is the result of zoonosis, and there are many silly conspiracy theories out there -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
You're correct that it's the same survey! What's different is the reliable secondary news coverage and that it breaks things out by level of confidence a little differently.
My sense is that the current article is considerably more sure of itself than the scientists in the survey, e.g. "misplaced suspicion" in the lead expresses no uncertainty so it is a minority opinion. - Palpable (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
And we back to the same repeated arguments. I don't believe that the article has any 'misplaced suspicion', but correctly contextualises the theory as a minority review. The exact position that the article you mentioned also handles it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
"Misplaced suspicion", as used in the lead, is a dispositive statement implying confidence greater than 95% in natural zoonosis. That is a minority scientific viewpoint.
I'm not sure what to make of the recent arguments here that the article conveys a 20% likelihood of lab leak now. - Palpable (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
The only time that "Misplaced suspicion" is used is in relation to conspiracy theories, e.g. people with misplaced suspicions have created conspiracy theories. That wording has nothing to do with the minority view, but the nonsense that people have made up about that minority view.
Is the zoonosis 95% more likely than one of the conspiracy theories? Yes, and the lab leak is also 95% more likely than the conspiracy theories. Does discussion of the conspiracy theories say that one theory is more likely than the other? Not in the slightest.
The paragraph on conspiracy theories is going to stay because the conspiracy theories are well documented in reliable sources, and when discussing the conspiracy theories they will be handled as those reliable sources handle them. Discussing the conspiracy theories is not the same as saying the theory of a lab leak is itself a conspiracy theory. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia's level of certainty is actually a minority view - that might be true of (some) Wikipedia editors but having reviewed the text of this article and Origins of SARS-CoV-2, I don't think our article text affords any certainty - it seems about as confident as the scientists surveyed, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the tone of the article does not match the opinions of experts at this point. Ymerazu (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
The summary of the source is "Most respondents in a global survey of experts said it was unlikely the COVID-19 pandemic originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology." The Wikipedia article states this well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Agree that the article doesn't reflect the expert survey. Some examples just from the lead: a) the article calls the theory "highly controversial" b) "available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats" implies that experts have little doubt about the origin of COVID (whilst the survey suggests experts place a 21% probability on a lab leak scenario), c) we start discussing conspiracy theories in only the second paragraph of the article implying that these are very important part of the lab leak discourse, when in fact it's a plausible scenario assigned a significant probability by experts (according to the survey). PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't think anybody dissents from a bat origin, other than the engineered-from-scratch crowd, and they are out-and-out cranks. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes true sorry meant to include the second part of the sentence "and spread to humans from infected wild animals, functioning as an intermediate host, at the Huanan Seafood Market" PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Well we follow the sources on that, rather well. Bon courage (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for exploring it so clearly. A reasonable person would conclude that the lead implies the lab leak is a conspiracy theory, which I think is the intent and to the satisfaction of some other users here. I think we should not be too discouraged that a lot of the commenters here think that the lead is unbiased in its present state. The best thing is probably to produce and consider a rewrite or some edits that reflect the situation better. As you say, it is not at all clear from the lead that 20% of scientists surveyed consider a leak to be the most viable theory. Ymerazu (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Well, it the nexus of a load of conspiracy theories as our article explains. 20% of scientists is not really significant. Scientists can believe all sorts of tosh. What matters here is the reliable published sources. Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
One consequence of having an article that discusses both conspiracy theories and an established and significant minority scientific viewpoint is that the two topics clash with each other. Ymerazu (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Legitimate views about SCV2 origin are at Origin of SARS-CoV-2, not here. Bon courage (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Thankfully, editor consensus does not agree with you. Unfortunately for our readers, the page does not reflect consensus. Ymerazu (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
The whole idea of voting on what happened is stupid anyway, but... there was a 15% response rate. So, 85% possibly thought, "lab leak? What bollocks! I have better things to do" and binned the missive. All you can say about the result is not "n percent of all experts say X" but "n percent of those experts that find the question interesting say X". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's generally assumed that such statistics only represent the views of the people who actually responded; I don't think any special disclaimer clarifying that is necessary. I don't presume Oral B ads are claiming they personally interviewed all 200,000 dentists in the US and exactly 180,000 of them supported their toothpaste.
Anecdotally, response rates for survey polls over broad fields tend to have very low response rates in general. At least in my specialty, social sciences, you would be ecstatic to have response rates greater than 10%. I don't think a response rate of 15% adds or detracts from the reliability of the poll. (And the implied logic that people who didn't respond could have done so because they thought the answer was so obvious and not worth their time could just as easily be applied in the reverse direction, it's conjecture.) BabbleOnto (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
What you think about this poll is not relevant. Science is not done by polling scientists, period. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Science is also not done by blatant conjecture. 2601:18F:800:EE00:7EB2:1CFC:41CD:4178 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
This is not a forum. My statement was a refutation of the previous contribution, while your statement has no connection to anything here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Can you describe scientific consensus in a way that is not effectively a poll of subject matter experts, or is it that too stupid? Your argument against the poll was pure conjecture and it’s not good for determining what sources should or should not be used. 2601:18F:800:EE00:9919:D1D5:757A:788B (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Secondary expert coverage of the totality of the results of scientific studies on the subject, of course.
The opinion of scientists is something the scientific methodology treats as a source of bias and actively strives to prevent from influencing the result of studies by double-blinding. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh good lord now you’re just spewing eloquent bullshit. There does not exist a single citable source for that. You look it up in a text book, or a professional society you’ll see the words like, debate, opinion, evidence. No one has ever, in the history of humanity used a double blind study to reach scientific consensus. 2601:18F:800:EE00:9919:D1D5:757A:788B (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I never said that it works like that. I only explained to you that consensus has nothing to do with opinion but with results, and that opinion is seen as a hindrance and a source of error. But this is drifting too far from improving the article. So, I will not respond to your next strawman. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - the editorial position of this Wikipedia article should reflect the consensus of scientists as published in peer-reviewed academic journal articles. I've read parts of this report and the Science coverage provided above, and it is interesting. But I strongly object to editors attempting to use the poll to divert this article Wikipedia article away from scientific consensus. -Darouet (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
    The consensus of the so-preconized “peer-reviewed academic journal articles” (PRAJA) seems to still be on a conjectural stage. A lab leak is considered “unlikely” but without any concrete evidence except for far-fetched probabilistic analyses based on previous spillover events which could be statistically independent of this current one. The reason why such references decided to jump the gun and make almost-peremptory statements in their titles and abstracts based on no categorical evidence would surely puzzle someone ignoring the political context and pressure around this matter. In my opinion, such context does not act in favor of the reliability of PRAJA, and considering only this kind of reference to extract a consensus could potentially lead to bias. 2804:7F4:323D:3A18:91E2:D9EB:9E76:D7C4 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
    It's not our job to sleuth for what "Truly™" is, especially if it means looking a crappy sources. Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as found in the WP:BESTSOURCES. That's it. Bon courage (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
    That would be a wonderful world to live in. Wouldn't it? And it's a wonderful goal. But saying wikipedia uses the "best sources" and the wikipedia "reflects that" Is a little bit high on our own supply. We strive to, we do. But man are there a lot of gharbage tabloid sources this website pays far too much heed to. 24.63.3.107 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
    If that is supposed to be reasoning in favor of using the poll (which, from the context of the discussion, it seems to be), the reasoning part is missing. If it is not supposed to be reasoning in favor of using the poll, then what is it reasoning for? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
    Wikipedia's article on scientific consensus describes it as the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time. Publications inform the consensus of scientists, they don't define it.
    A confidential systematic survey of experts is a direct attempt to measure consensus. It would be nice to have a survey that had been published in a peer reviewed journal, but at this time this is the best available survey of scientific consensus on the subject. Usually this study is cited in arguments against lab leak for what it's worth. - Palpable (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
    Agree: The article no longer reflects the current state of scientific knowledge and scientists. The tone of the article is that many want the laboratory hypothesis to be branded as a conspiracy theory - without rigorous evidence, but probably for political reasons. This is contrary to neutrality and balance. "Belief" (which appears several times in the article) is not yet evidence of anything. We should mention this explicitly. Empiricus (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
    no longer reflects Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on your opinion. (Remember that one of the jobs of secret services is disinformation. They are not reliable sources.) The scientific sources about facts (as opposed to opinions) have not changed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
You've falsely assumed that the "experts" for investigating a lab leak are people who are experts in fields that are tangentially related to investigating a lab leak. One could more effectively argue that intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies are closer to experts on this matter than epidemiologists and virologists, whose training has absolutely nothing to do with investigating a lab leak, because all of their training assumes a natural origin.
Clearly this article is egregiously flawed and is frankly an embarrassment for wikipedia and every editor involved with this page. 2601:547:1903:2200:E9E8:4137:ECA1:3F18 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
They assumed no such thing. Experts can compare genomes and draw conclusions from those. Intelligence agencies, on the other hand, do whatever their boss tells them, including spread disinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, from a mathematical ans statistical point of view, the laboratory hypothesis has the highest probability, as recently investigated by a study (100 pages).Levin, Andrew T. A Bayesian Assessment of the Origins of COVID-19 using Spatiotemporal and Zoonotic Data. No. w33428. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2025. "The overall odds ratio is 14,900:1, indicating overwhelming evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the pandemic resulted from an accidental lab leak. This conclusion is robust to alternative specifications of the detailed statistical analysis." --Empiricus (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that actually reliable sources in the field of epidemiology regard Levin's conclusions as spurious and off-piste. Which is presumably why they were published (and presumably peer-reviewed) by economists, not by scientists. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
He is also a mathematician who tested the hypotheses using mathematical methods. Prove the opposite. Empiricus (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Why would I have to prove the opposite? The origin of a virus is primarily in the domain of biology, not economics or statistics. Further, any mathematical model of the origin of Covid (Bayesian or otherwise) is completely dependent on how it is specified in relation to actual biological phenomena - otherwise we are in "dancing on the head of a pin" territory. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
See point 2 of the consensus. There's no consensus that the origin of the virus is a biomedical issue, and thus no authoritative reason only biology journals/studies can be used as sources on it. BabbleOnto (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
This isn't about consensus two, but proper source selection. A virologists wouldn't be used as a source in an article about economics, as it's outside of their field of expertise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Consensus 2 is precisely about source selection. Your suggestion that a mathematical model can't be used when discussing the lab leak theory is precisely the thing that Consensus 2 was designed to address. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Consenus on this talk page don't magically overrule basic principles, sources from experts in the field of study are better sources than those from outside the field. This is basic source selection. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The very purpose of a consensus point is to overrule otherwise basic principles... for example consensus point 9 overrules the basic principle that an article can go through the requested moves process, and consensus point 3 overrules the basic principle that peer-reviewed scientific journal articles are acceptable sources, by specifying that two specific authors should not be cited. BabbleOnto (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
No, see WP:CONLOCAL. Local consensus cannot override policy. In fact, consensus cannot override core policy at all (see WP:COPO.) WP:V is core policy, so we're always bound to use the best available sources. Consensuses can determine decision points within basic policy (eg. determining whether a particular source is reliable; obviously not all authors are automatically reliable) but it can't just let us ignore it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting we override WP:V. The consensus point was to not designate this question WP:MEDRS. Therefore, standard WP:RS rules apply, and scientific articles are best sources. Unless there is a core policy that this topic is MEDRS (there is not) then this is not overriding a core policy. BabbleOnto (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
MEDRS is a much more narrow and specific question than WP:BESTSOURCES; obviously BESTSOURCES still applies, which means that the best sources are still those with the most relevant expertise. An opinion from an academic speaking outside their area of expertise remains a low-quality source for this topic and cannot be used when contradicted by higher-quality sources or to eg. support exceptional claims; all that consensus 2 establishes is that it is not strictly forbidden. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
This silly aside can be closed down, as they are now topic banned from COVID19. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh almost like in China, where other COVID 19 narratives are banned. Today it is actually clear that the secret services had the best sources regarding the origin, not only in the USA, Germany, but also in Great Britain - very early on. This is one interessting example. Empiricus (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Noone is being silenced here for their opinions only their behaviour, specifically WP:SEALIONING in this case. As to the Daily Mail it's as reliable as that bloke who stands on the street corner yelling at passersby. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Lab leak is not a theory anymore than bat soup zoonotic spillover is a theory

WP:NOTFORUM. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:07, 25 April 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.

There is no proof SARS COV 2 is a lab leak. Sure, I'll give you that. There is equally no proof SARS COV 2 came from bats the way 229E, OC43, HKU1, NL63 did in the distant past. It has never been isolated in a wild animal. It is not endemic in any bat population. Therefore, lab leak is not a theory anymore than bat soup zoonotic spillover is a theory. Both lab leak and bat soup are unfounded hypothesis with no proof whatsover. 216.165.208.39 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Being forcibly reminded of why we had a one year ban on page renaming discussions. Another one may be due. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
There is no proof that you exist. There is no way to prove anything in the natural sciences, only the compilation of evidence. When there is enough evidence supporting an hypothesis then we call it a theory. As new evidence arrives we need to reevaluate what is a theory. Proof is for Logic and Mathematics. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
The Lancet Letter Covid 19 decreased the research for the hypothese of the lab leak theory in the early days of the pandemic in 2020 EilertBorchert (talk) 17:28, 24 April 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.

CIA says it is from a lab leak.

Information recently added to the article; discussion about the inclusion of this information is ongoing at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Protected edit request on 19 March 2025 (CIA Assessment). 2804:18:963:B9BA:B586:DD28:A457:B5B (talk) 10:57, 20 April 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.

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)

Please read the previous discussions on this page to get your answer. --McSly (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
We need sources nonetheless. An Alina Chan for every Peter Daszak would be nice. Alexpl (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
Thats an interesting survey and the article certainly doesn't reflect the breakdown in expert opinion. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
@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)
The word "presumably" is carrying a lot of weight here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
@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)
What do they have to lose if it’s correct? 2600:4040:5E5F:BA00:4C92:2421:24A6:21E2 (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
@2600:4040:5E5F:BA00:4C92:2421:24A6:21E2 To answer your question: depending on the individual scientist or engineer - funding for their research, employment/academic tenure, public disgrace, and even criminal prosecution for fraud, as well as discrediting of their entire academic discipline, profession and/or industry. I see that as pretty high stakes. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
We do mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
We dont currently mention it, its be excided from the article. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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.

mention USGOV site?

The site in question was added within a few minutes of the thread starting. Bon courage (talk) 08:09, 20 April 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.

The covid.gov site of the US government has redirected to a page endorsing the lab leak theory (news source: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/18/covid-lab-leak-website-trump-white-house. Should this be included in the article?. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

When there's good secondary coverage, which no doubt will be soon. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
There is plenty of good secondary coverage:
PricklyPorcupine (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
All those reports point out that Trump is politically motivated and his stance isn't backed by evidence. I like to point out the giant elephant in the room that US intelligence community assigned only low confidence to the lab escape theory and explicitly admitted there was no concrete evidence available to prove this theory. The reports noted that the lab workers in question didn’t show COVID-confirmed symptoms - some had unrelated illnesses, and others had generic cold-like symptoms. That’s not qualified to be proof. Also, other conspitacy claims like "furin cleavage sites" being unnatural have also been debunked by experts - as those occur in nature too.
Yet Trump's admin have recently changed their official US gov site to claim that lab leak is the facts. But it's a classic case of WP:RECENTISM where the Trump's admins stance isn't based on some new scientific evidence but rather in political blame-shifting. And safe to say the US gov under Trump admin is not a particularly trustworthy source on scientific matters, esp when political motivations are clearly involved. Nor is the US any more authoritative than other govs on this issue so WP:DUE applies. Giving undue weight to a politically compromised, low-confidence theory risks misleading readers and violating WP:NPOV. Smalledi (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
They had low confidence in the natural origin theory too. Regardless of the confidence level, what is of significance is the swing in position from natural origin to research related origin. None of that has anything to do with this Trump story about him promoting the lab origin theory as the reliable sources report it. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
@PricklyPorcupine Many scientific bodies rate natural origin as the most likely and plausible. They override what a politically involved US gov body claims. Regardless, if Trump insisted climate change is a hoax, would we advocate adding that to the lede of the Climate change article and give it equal weight over decades of scientific consensus? Hopefully not. The same logic applies here too on scientific dominated articles. I am simply saying to others don't give it undue weight but as long as it's not in the lede, then I am fine. Because including it anywhere in the lede alongside authoritive scientific positions misleads readers and gives such fringe claims the appearance of legitimacy. I didn't mean to imply I also oppose adding it to US gov responses section, as that seems reasonable. Tho preferably should maybe include the fuller context: that the Trump admin changed that website to endorse fringe theory despite lack of evidence, and for political reasons which are suggested by many of your links.Smalledi (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE is a good read on this type of issue. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm still disinclined to accept "I've pulled up a few news articles" as automatically secondary coverage without any explanation as to why one might think that to be the case.
I see also that someone has decided to insert a quote from the sources calling the new site "pure propaganda", and I think this adequately illustrates why it may not be entirely appropriate for our content to hew to the news coverage of the day. Even if we accept that these are the sources we should be using, editorial judgement should be applied to determine whether something like that is really necessary, or if doesn't follow the existing body of scientific evidence sufficiently summarises things without the dramatic wording. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Worth noting that User:Dan Leonard has added it by now. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
I think today's addition of On April 18, 2025, the second administration of Donald Trump removed the online hub for federal COVID-19 resources, including COVID.gov and COVIDtests.gov, and redirected the domains to a whitehouse.gov landing page entitled "Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19" endorsing the theory. is reasonable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae I think that edit is reasonable too and have no issues with that. Smalledi (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest maybe including additional context, that highlights how scientific experts have criticised that new website and say it "doesn't follow the existing body of scientific evidence on the issue". Such as "Every one of the five pieces of evidence supporting the lab leak hypothesis … is factually incorrect, embellished, or presented in a misleading way". These critiques suggest the website's content is largely unsubstantiated and more aligned with political narratives than with rigorous scientific analysis. [1] Smalledi (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
This is disinfo. It very much follows the science. Jibolba (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Scientists disagree that this nonsense "follows the science". Misleading propaganda and falsehood needs to be correctly identified because of Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. Fortunately the sources are already there for that, and more no doubt will emerge. Bon courage (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Adding something with the correct context seems sensible, I'm sure there are many reliable sources that talk of the quality of the content on the new site. Obviously only into the US government and intelligence agencies section where all such details belong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Oh, scientific evidence? So, "scientists" have already found the missing link, the mysterious animal? Zp112 (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah, "Prez sez lab leak". But I see nothing new. A short sentence, mentioning the date for reference, should do. Alexpl (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
While "Prez sez lab leak" sounds dismissive (and of course you'd never put exactly that in an article), I do think that when IPs and new editors persistently request that something be included, that's usually a sign that we aren't acknowledging the existence of a POV. If adding something like "Donald Trump blames the pandemic on a lab leak" – without implying that he's correct to do so – will stop these requests, then I support adding such a sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. What I see on this talk page is a recurring pattern: a range of editors — new and old — suggesting additions of content based on new reports, and a smaller group of recurring names pushing back against nearly all of them, seemingly out of concern that the article might become too neutral or fair in its coverage. This looks like gatekeeping. 2600:1700:1F00:DC20:4D6B:FBB9:4D54:360A (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes I think we can say "without evidence, the US government decided to declare the lab leak theory valid" or some such. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
We are all just awaiting the CIA signals intelligence, with a bat lady on the phone call, that will be reported by the AP, The Washington Post and NY Times, that this environment will reject, because this article and talk section is stuck in 2021. 2601:248:C000:147A:295E:C996:5DBB:4E91 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
And you can wait until then, if ever, then come back to add it in when it happens. But that hasn't happened as of current so we don't add it in. The CIA themselves had to acknowledge their report is not high confidence. Meanwhile high quality peer reviewed studies still overwhelmingly support natural zoonotic event. And few expects the CIA to show any evidence to prove lab origin; if they had something, they would have shown it years ago. If peer reviewed studies and mainstream media suddenly overwhelmingly support artificial origin/lab origin as a fact then rest assured, Wikipedia will reflect that. Smalledi (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The FBI and CIA already concluded lab leak was more likely than natural origin before Trump administration. Why isn't the opinion of the US's most prominent law enforcement and intelligence agency included in this article? And with that view from the FBI and CIA, why is the Trump admin report even controversial?
https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/fbi-not-allowed-to-brief-biden-on-covid-lab-leak-theory-8df9mr997?utm_source=chatgpt.com&region=global
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/26/cia-covid-lab-leak-theory Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@Helpingtoclarify Don't know how the others can deal with this long term but I really don't want to repeat myself forever, so I am going to make one final full explanation before leaving this thread. The science hasn't changed and as long as it hasn't - you can't claim it has because of CIA report. The CIA themselves rated their report as low confidence as there are a lot of fallacies in their evidence. Example read page 6 of their report.[2] They don't even endorse it strongly themselves.[3] Some sensational media and pundits may always hype it up[4] but both Intel agencies have not publicly released evidence strong enough to meet scientific standards. Go ahead and also ask your Chatgpt bot why Wikipedia policies won't add lab origin as a fact here after CIA and FBI claim it so. Because this is a science dominated article and US agencies minimally need to provide concrete, peer-reviewed evidence in order for their assessments to be included into scientific discourse.[5] As of current, both CIA and FBI have given no evidence to prove it came or was made from a lab, and CIA merely rehashed a low confidence report from 2023.[6] We can mention it in the US gov responses chapter (and we already do) but we can't give it more weight than it deserves, nor can we now falsely imply it's evidence to prove lab made or origin, when the majority of peer reviewed studies overwhelmingly supports natural zoonotic event. WP:DUE. [7][8][9] And no new peer reviewed evidence have ever emerged in past 5 years to dislodge that and we follow the science and not media hype or the CIA 'low confidence' report (which amusingly admits they have no evidence to prove lab leak theory) [10] Smalledi (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The FBI and CIA reports concluding lab leak was most likely origin was mostly based on intelligence they gathered. This is what they do. I don't see how this isn't relevant to support of lab leak theory. For example FBI report cited intelligence pointing to COVID like symptoms in workers at the Wuhan lab before the reported outbreak.
Denying this relevance is just typical for Wikipedia so I get it. The whole article takes on a tone of "conspiracy", which isn't appropriate given backing of these agencies. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Its not typical of Wikipedia, but typical of individual Wikipedia editors, trying to slant our coverage one way. In any case, the statement has been added to the page and we are done here. 2600:1700:1F00:DC20:4D6B:FBB9:4D54:360A (talk) 07:52, 20 April 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.

1st citation caption

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 [11], [12] 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)

Request for ECP on talk page declined

Hi Everyone, I requested ECP protection for this talk page and for Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2, and my request was declined [13]. Editors and administrators who contributed to that discussion include Tryptofish, Daniel Case, Nil Einne, SmolBrane, Altenmann, and Lectonar. Editors who commented noted that the situation on some other pages is much worse, both in terms of the amount of posting by IPs and SPAs, and in terms of pure disruption and vitriol. They were concerned that ECP would effectively censor the talk pages.

In terms of productive advice to editors, admins and editors advised two remedies. First, they suggested an FAQ, which I think is well covered by the two boxes we keep at the top of these two articles on "Consensus on the Origins of COVID-19" and on "Sources." Basically, we should refer to these more frequently. Second, they suggested that we not "feed the trolls" if discussion becomes unproductive. By mentioning the editors above I think they can comment themselves in case I've misrepresented their views. -Darouet (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

From your request: The talk pages, however, have suffered under a truly withering barrage of endless requests that we depart from the standard of scientific consensus, and treat the concept of a laboratory leak as highly plausible. That’s a gross misrepresentation. The requests have generally been to give due weight to the lab leak theory more than 5 years after the start of the pandemic; to show that many respected, experienced scientists still have serious doubts about the origins of COVID, that scientists have been revisiting the presented arguments for natural zoonosis and finding themselves unconvinced, that intelligence agencies have also had serious doubts about it. Giving the reader an opportunity to see that this is still a controversial topic in both politics and academy, and that many scientists have become equally uncertain about both natural zoonosis and lab leak, is a very different thing from trying to simply push a view of a lab leak being “highly plausible”. Also, “scientific consensus”, especially on recent and controversial topics like these, is something that is subject to change (and 5 years are more than enough time for that to happen). This article fails to address this change by not even acknowledging the existence of the Académie de Médecine report. Editors have been insisting on its inclusion because they value the opinion of scientists, not because they want to throw science in the trash and start an article about mere unfounded conspiracies. 2804:18:965:8AD1:153D:BC8D:5552:DDFB (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
“scientific consensus”, especially on recent and controversial topics like these, is something that is subject to change Scientific consensus could theoretically have changed (duh!) but did not. The evidence for and against is still the same as in 2020.
  • Scientific consensus is about the state of the evidence.
  • Opinions, no matter whose, are not evidence.
That is something that needs to emphasized more because lots of ignorant laypeople do not get it. From thousands of experts, they always cherrypick a handful of people whose opinions agree with their own. But opinions are still not evidence, and consensus is not about opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
A more constructive and complete representation of the disputes on this page could have been made in the ECP request. Linking it here earlier may have improved that. As someone pointed out there: Is this page too contentious to link to a discussion about its own edit protection?
I think the discussion missed the mark about the nature of disagreements on the two sister covid origins articles (Covid Origins and here). There are certainly fringe theory people who believe in the lab leak and it has been pushed by fringe sources (or sources that may not be relevant for Wikipedia, such as the Alina Chan article). People have done an upstanding job of deflecting fringe that does not fit Wikipedia. I wonder if in that battle something has been lost, though.
Categorizing a user who wants to include e.g. the French Academy of Medicine source as disruptive ignores that there is no consensus on whether the lab leak is a fringe theory or scientific minority viewpoint (item 1 at the top of this page). Many of the people who disagree with the state of the article are being reasonable here, including IP users. Ymerazu (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Parallel discussion unrelated to the ECP request, revisiting discussions Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#French Academy of Medicine press release and Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 46#Secondary coverage of expert survey
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If there’s no reliable source stating that COVID Lab escape is credible then the absence of such evidence - likely because it doesn’t exist - cannot be used to undermine the scientific consensus that natural spillover remains the most likely origin of SARS-CoV-2. This was never a 50/50 scenario; the majority of reputable scientific organizations and experts have consistently supported zoonotic origin as the most plausible. Unless one have proof of lab leak, it's a conspiracy to inflate unlikely fringe theories. Also conspiracists should know Alina Chan is proven wrong on furin cleavages. Other scientists already proven such features occured naturally.
Btw I was one of those IP Users back in 2023 opposing fringe theories and for good reason. It wasn't just fringe but bulk of those claims were pushing disinfo or mere hype and not understanding odds of lab leak are significantly less than natural overspill. It's not 50:50 odds but closer to 999999999:1 odds for spillover. For transparency - these were some of my last comments in 2023 back when I was IP.[14] The fringe theorists were then saying furin cleavages is the undeniable proof of lab manipulation except it's really not - it occurs in nature too.[15] And US intelligence community admitted "No direct evidence COVID began in Wuhan lab" and gave why their evidence wasn't acceptable.[16] Nothing has really changed since and so the theory is undoubtedly fringe as of current and cannot be given appearance of legitimacy on Wikipedia per policy.Smalledi (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
You paint a very good picture of the situation 5 years ago. Since then, even in the absence of new significant evidence, a lot has changed. Science and knowledge evolve with time, especially when categorial statements disguised as science are published in the heat of the moment without due scrutiny. In fact, already in 2021, the editorial stance for this article was 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".. Even if the scientific peer-reviewed mainstream doesn’t yet reflect a position towards 50/50, we have several other sources from which a change in the scientific opinion can be obtained (e.g., statements by several experts in virology and epidemiology, whose addition to the article we have been denying for months). Saying It's not 50:50 odds but closer to 999999999:1 odds for spillover. is completely unrealistic in 2025, unless you want to argue that the respected virologists and epidemiologists from Académie de Médecine ingested mind-altering drugs before writing that report, and then shared those drugs with their peers in order to have it widely endorsed. Finally, even though that report is not MEDRS, I providentially remember that There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS.. The report exactly tackles the subject of pandemic origins and is a valid primary source for a change in scientific consensus. 2804:18:190E:74E2:E8F3:88C3:2F7F:6728 (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
We been here before. A very questionable action from a barely semi-qualified group and is played up as if it's now Global scientific consensus. No, what's global consensus is if top science journals like Nature and peer reviewed research says it is. And you should have stopped at WP:MEDRS. We rely on peer-reviewed research and genomic evidence and not on votes that are vulnerable to political and personal bias. It's deeply misleading to present the French Academy of Medicine's statement as any kind of global scientific consensus, especially when they conducted no real research, and are not even a primary research institution like the Pasteur Institute or INSERM. Do they represent scientists globally? No, the French Academy of Medicine does not even represent the top virologists in France, nor is it a leading institution for virology research. In fact, its members are mostly senior doctors and medical professors, many of whom are clinicians or specialists in fields unrelated to virology or evolutionary biology. Think about it for a second - if their take was global scientific consensus then it be leading in major global headlines and appear in peer-reviewed publications. That has not happened and ain't. Probably because science isn't proven by votes from a medical organisation with limited relevant expertise but by rigorous research and evidence.[17] We need peer reviewed research. and so until new, peer-reviewed evidence says otherwise, we follow the science and not speculation, press conferences, or votes from medical member institutions whose many members are not even primary experts in this area. That’s the whole point of having MEDRS policy to not exaggerate credibility esp when sources themselves generally aren't even career experts in virology.Smalledi (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
This isn't a MEDRS topic, there was an RFC about this. Hi! (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
All the WP:BMI aspects of the topic need WP:MEDRS sourcing per that RfC (and the WP:PAGs in general). Bon courage (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Also, the high odds of overspill over lab escape is not unrealistic. Actual peer reviewed research [18] [19] show virus was not man made but came from nature, and is also highly unlikely anyone has the tech to create such an advanced virus.[20] Hence it could mean either a lab worker got infected by a naturally born virus, or a villager near wildlife had gotten infected. It's a fact that the odds of one of many millions of villagers globally getting infected through interactions with hunting, droppings, undercooked meats etc are far more likely than with a professional lab. Millions of villagers living near wildlife are at a far higher risk of exposure to zoonotic viruses especially without professional protection and deforestation factors [21]. The data proves that and multiple natural animal to human infections like Mars, Sars and AIDS [22] have resulted from villagers getting naturally infected.[23] In contrast, lab workers are trained with high-security protocols, proper equipment, and containment measures, which doesn't make the risk zero but is far lower. When you compare the sheer millions of unprotected natural encounters to a handful of very tightly controlled labs, it is clear which scenario is so much more likely where the odds would be conservatively thousands to one for spillover. Without evidence proving the virus was man made or it escaped from the lab, it's just a conspiracy theory[24]Smalledi (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
You should try to read the French Academy of Medicine report or any of the FOIA’d evidence that has gotten out since 2020, including communications between scientists and the DEFUSE project by EcoHealthAlliance, which wanted years ago to do precisely the genetic alterations on viruses that you claim to be basically impossible to make (the project was refused due to safety reasons, and they would hardly propose something they had no idea on how to do; genetic alterations can be done in vitro via simulated natural selection on humanized tissues over time, for instance). The argument about previous epidemics having a natural zoonosis source is not used anymore even by the scientists supporting a natural origin as it requires circular reasoning (because we cannot say at this point if these previous zoonosis occurrences have any statistical relation to the current one, unless we assume natural zoonosis happened for COVID, which is exactly what we want to prove). Finally, the argument about lab safety is laughable; even the most outspoken scientists arguing for natural zoonosis have recognized, either in public or in private, that the WIV conducted experiments in vulnerable and risky conditions (e.g., works on coronaviruses under BSL-2). Seems like you haven’t read much on this topic since the Proximal Origins paper came out. That’s the issue of only basing your arguments on MEDRS from peer-reviewed scientific journals, whereas, once again, the editorial consensus for this article is that “pandemic origins” is NOT biomedical information for the purposes of MEDRS. If you want to change that consensus, I suggest you catch up on the news since 2020 and open up an RfC. Or, if you consider the virologists and epidemiologists (yes, that’s what many of the authors are) responsible for the French Academy report so insignificant, maybe you could enlighten us with your knowledge by publishing a detailed and consistent rebuttal to it. As it gets secondary coverage, which it probably will since you apparently know much more than those scientists and are probably very well-known in virology/epidemiology top-notch research circles, we can add it to this article. 2804:18:96B:1C0D:6D62:A184:FB53:3BA5 (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
You claim a lot has changed, adding platitudes about science evolving, but then cannot name anything that has changed, except a few opinions. Opinions are still not evidence. The evidence has not changed toward LL in the last five years. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Quite. The "discourse" has seethed in the mass media but evidence, and reliable publications have not shifted, except they call LL "discredited", a "fringe theory" or "simply wrong". Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Again, since 2020 we haven’t had new categorical evidence but we have had FOIA’d records, evidence of private communications between involved scientists, and the leak of the DEFUSE project. You assume that, given a set of evidence, scientists will always get it right on their very first analysis of the situation (done, I might add, under extreme political pressure and short deadline). Evidence can be reanalyzed at any given moment, especially in view of more details about the political context and pressures involved in that first attempt. Scientists are not infallible devices that always get it right the first time, neither are they immune from political pressures. Any person who was, at least once in their life, involved in the making of real science, knows this. People who never did science and blindly defend it directly from their armchairs, without understanding the circumstances of its development, do not. 2804:18:96B:1C0D:6D62:A184:FB53:3BA5 (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
We are unlikely to ever have "categorical" evidence concerning the origin. A demand for such is a hallmark of conspiratorial thinking. According to our sources we have multiple lines of converging evidence since 2020. The latest from last year has simply been ignored by editors here since it did not make a big splash in the news sources. fiveby(zero) 11:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
An issue is that this page is focused on the lab leak phenomenon (which, as it turns out is really a political/psychosocial phenomenon); actual evidence about origin goes in the origin article. Bon courage (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
I am not demanding for categorical evidence. However, categorical statements such as It's not 50:50 odds but closer to 999999999:1 odds for spillover or a lab leak is extremely unlikely do depend on either categorical evidence or consistent, sound and irrefutable arguments based on a set of not so categorical evidence. At this point, we have neither but we do have a group of scientists pushing for a complete discredit of a lab leak in peer-reviewed scientific papers, and a group of editors following them religiously. If a peer-reviewed paper or MEDRS goes in an opposite direction, it is immediately discredited as not coming from an expert in virology, not being published in an adequate venue, or being plagued by the overstatements of a coauthor and the initial reporting thereof. Try not to distort what I say next time you attempt to categorize me as a conspiracist. 2804:18:96B:1C0D:6D62:A184:FB53:3BA5 (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
a group of scientists pushing for a complete discredit of a lab leak ← is not really correct; the view (as expressed e.g. by Holmes in the recent Zeit article) is that it's a valid question worth considering, but that the evidence isn't there, and the arguments for it are generally flap-eared conspiracism. Holmes said if there was evidence that the WIV had SCV2 on-site prior to the pandemic, that for him would be almost irrefutable and he's change his mind in a jiffy. Perhaps we should include this view in the article? Bon courage (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we could. What bothers me is that science should not be this probabilistic game where “if the WIV states they had the virus” then we go all-in for lab leak, otherwise if they don’t come clean (or no evidence is found) we just assume they never withheld any information, so they never had the virus and we go continue to go all-in for zoonosis. Science is not supposed to always decide categorically between things, in fact most of the time it is just inconclusive (which usually doesn’t result in publications, though). I think the political and social pressures on this particular topic have been huge from the start and it ended up messing up the “natural course” of science; noise accumulated over time with rushed demands for the ends instead of focus on the means. 2804:18:96B:1C0D:6D62:A184:FB53:3BA5 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Why do you say "that report is not MEDRS"? It comes from a WP:MEDORG, it makes recommendations concerning public health and epidemiology which is biomedical information. Editors should evaluate based on what the report actually says and which parts of the report might be pertinent. fiveby(zero) 10:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
In the sense that it is a statement by a reputable MEDORG containing recommendations and guidelines, I agree with you that it is primary MEDRS. It was, however, not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which seems to be the de facto MEDRS standard considered by many editors for this article. My statement was referring to that de facto sense, given the discussion in the above topic about the inclusion of French report, and foreseeing further attempts to discredit it. 2804:18:96B:1C0D:6D62:A184:FB53:3BA5 (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
I think it would qualify as MEDRS, but that really isn't the issue. It's more that it doesn't really say anything meaningful while it was spun into being something it wasn't. As far as evidence goes, it just reiterates the commonplace that there is none for LL. Bon courage (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Throwing a reference by experts in the garbage just because of an overstatement by a coauthor that was only prominent in very early-on reporting, when the report hadn’t yet been published, is simply nuts. Everyone following this talk page knows exactly what the real issue is: the report sides with a lab leak or at least gives it as much likelihood as natural zoonosis, and even though it is MEDRS authored by reputable experts, it is not aligned with the POV from peer-reviewed biomedical scientific papers most of this article is based on, so that reference must stay out. 2804:18:96B:1C0D:6D62:A184:FB53:3BA5 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't "side" with the lab leak; that's the misinformation that has been spread about it. Bon courage (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
No, according to “Le Monde”, La lecture du rapport suggère que l’hypothèse de l’accident de laboratoire a les faveurs du groupe de travail.. I would challenge any editor here to read the report in its totality, under adequate translation, and state otherwise. The misinformation card is out of the deck; I suggest you find another one if the contents of the report don’t go down well with you. 2804:18:96B:1C0D:6D62:A184:FB53:3BA5 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
The segue to WP:PRIMARYNEWS misinformation is telling. I think we can cite the report itself, but it doesn't add anything to the article particularly. Wikipedia certainly is not going to indulge in WP:PROFRINGE fantasy interpretations of it! Bon courage (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the report says. Unless it's peer reviewed and backed by major journals then I take it with a grain of salt. Btw report itself[25] doesn’t pretend to have proof for the current origin - it makes that clear upfront and focuses on preventive lessons. It express concerns about gain of function, lab safety, responsible research governance and biosafety and urges improvment. Even I would support that report too as I agree there should be more scrutiny and not be a closed case which no virologist would disagree. But am not sure how people can think the report also proves that natural spillover is not likely as it doesn't even explicitly claim that. Instead it seems to express opinions like the Chinese gov is secretive and Xi in one of his speech signify guilt, hence it's not to be dismissed. But that's not even science but a politically heavy opinion. Regardless, if the lab leak hypothesis had compelling, widely accepted evidence, we’d expect to see it reflected in leading virology journals or statements by major scientific bodies (that should minimally consist of experienced virologists). But that’s not the reality. I see multiple peer reviewed studies show furin cleavages do exist in nature [26] (contradicting that report hype) and I see more and more peer reviewed studies and evidence strongly proving natural spillover [27] [28][29]. I see plenty of strong evidence for natural overspill but no peer reviewed study showing any evidence on the contrary. And if all that french report has is support by an academy where majority of its members aren't virologists. Then that's not global consensus and you are fooling yourself to think it represents global scientific consensus. If you look at large surveys of actual virologists - it shows overwhelming majority support for natural spillover. [30]. That has not suddenly changed. And in the past years - all you have is some Fringe views getting views in bad media but it dies down. Wouldn't be surprised if this too will occur with the French report, based on what I have read on it so far. Smalledi (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
The expert survey you cite [31] does not support your position.
Enserink, Martin (February 6, 2024). "Virologists and epidemiologists back natural origin for COVID-19, survey suggests". Science. Retrieved January 31, 2025.
  1. "On average, respondents assigned a 77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario, and 2% to the “other” category. One-quarter of respondents seemed to be very sure about a zoonotic origin, giving it a probability between 96% and 100%."
  2. "Only 12% of respondents said no further studies are necessary. Thirty-seven percent said “some” additional research is needed, and more than half—including 43% of virologists—said studies should continue because “major gaps” remain in the investigations done so far."
This coverage actually breaks things down in a more useful way.
  • the majority of scientists favor natural zoonosis but are not certain.
  • "One-quarter of respondents seemed to be very sure about a zoonotic origin"
  • lab leak is another significant minority view, held by one fifth of respondents.
One fifth is not fringe, and the majority believes more research is necessary. Previous discussion [32]. - Palpable (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
@Palpable It does support my position that natural zoonotic is the majority position. You can nitpick that it's not 100 percent and there will always be a minority that do not think so. But don't confuse lab leak proponents as all believing in artificial origin of the virus. It's still reasonable to speculate lab leak too as long as they also don't claim the virus was man made but came from nature.[33] And when I say fringe - I only mean those who insist the virus was man made or modified by man. As long as there's strong peer reviewed evidence supporting natural origin, and no real evidence proving artificial lab origin, it's a fringe view to insist China must possess technology that the entire western world do not have, because literally nobody in the known western world could have artificially invented COVID-19 without leaving clear signs or a "signature" in the virus's genome. The genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone and also evolved protections against immune systems, which wouldn’t occur in a lab dish that has no immune system. There's also a long list of reasons why it's natural and go read up on it. The two virologists in French academy of medicine (far smaller number and cannot be called a majority) subtly imply the virus was a product of gain of function work but has given ZERO evidence to prove it. That's why majority of science world will not follow them as they follow science and proof, and not opinions. Not even mainstream media like BBC and New York Times pay them attention because they got nothing new but just the fringe minority who hints it's a bioweapon that was made by gain of function, despite - they are both claiming it's maybe artificial but admitting they got no evidence and do not explicitly conclude that in their report. Smalledi (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
@Palpable Also in Wikipedia policy, anything that's fringe is something not supported by the majority expertise or by science. Fringe theories are ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in their particular field.' It's not an equal 50:50 view split between lab origin and nature. Majority of virologists do believe it's more likely from nature. And if you actually read that french academy of medicine report, it doesn't even explicitly say the virus was from a lab leak but is mostly just recommendations to prevent such a thing happening, but stops short of declaring lab origin as a fact or giving evidence to prove it. The mainstream understanding is that it's natural born, most likely from natural zoonotic event but lab leak is still not ruled out as a possibility, albeit far lower odds. Anyone that departs from that mainstream view and gives no evidence to prove their view, is fringe. Smalledi (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE goes to some pains to explain that fringe does not mean minority. - Palpable (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@Smalledi your replies are far too long and winded. Please read WP:BLUDGEON. 2600:1700:1F00:DC20:4D6B:FBB9:4D54:360A (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I would disagree with you there, the ultimate purpose now of trying to determine the origin is to try and prevent the next epidemic by making just such recommendations. In a quality article some content from the report might be pertinent, maybe more so for the origins article. But as these talk page threads demonstrate we really can't do that and the priority is to prevent poor quality content from making its way into the article. More potential for poor content from the report probably, so i'll shut up about it. fiveby(zero) 11:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss this issue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Is this in reply to the right comment? Ymerazu (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
There are many virology journals out there that do peer reviews. I trust in that. The French academy of medicine isn't that. All you really have is small handful of virologists (no more than 2) who insisted to the press that they know it's a lab leak. And then claim they are in the right because 97 percent of members in French academy of medicine had voted for their claim. But what are the fraction of members in French academy of medicine, that actually have a degree in virology? You can look up its member list [34] and they barely got more than five virologists out of their limited 300 members list. Instead vast majority of the French academy members are undeniably mere clinicians or medical professors in fields such as cardiology, psychiatry, endocrinology, surgery, oncoly etc., with no formal specialization in virology or viral evolution. So saying 97 percent voted for it, isn't really a top tier endorsement. It would have much more weight if it was voted by a large number of virologists who actually does studies and minimally understand these things on a professional deeper level and we have such comprehensive surveys which many virologists polled support natural zoonotic event over ll. [35] There are large polls of actual virologists which shows majority don't support the Lab leak theory.[36] Hence two individual french scientists and a medical academy of members who most aren't even career virologists, does not override that.Smalledi (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see the confusion. I appreciate the depth of detail in your argument but I didn't mean to discuss the French Academy of Medicine release here. I used it as an example of disagreements among good faith editors. I think this source already has a section that your comment would better serve. Kindly, Ymerazu (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Note. A discussion regarding the ECP request for the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 talk page is currently taking place at Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2#Request for ECP on talk page declined. Following the outcome of the ECP request, alternative measures for protection of this talk page are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#COVID 19 Lab Leak Edit Restrictions?. Regards, 2804:18:963:B9BA:B586:DD28:A457:B5B (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_46&oldid=1288803329"