Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Lab Safety

The WIV has a documented issue with poor safety practices.

Vanity Fair and ProPublica downloaded more than 500 documents from the WIV website, including party branch dispatches from 2017 to the present. To assess Reid’s interpretation, we sent key documents to experts on CCP communications. They told us that the WIV dispatches did indeed signal that the institute faced an acute safety emergency in November 2019; that officials at the highest levels of the Chinese government weighed in; and that urgent action was taken in an effort to address ongoing safety issues. The documents do not make clear who was responsible for the crisis, which laboratory it affected specifically or what the exact nature of the biosafety emergency was. https://www.propublica.org/article/senate-report-covid-19-origin-wuhan-lab

Why is this not in the article? DarrellWinkler (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Because multiple reputable sources have disagreed with the content and interpretations of this report. We don't report things that are reported as true from one place, and then probably not true from dozens of other places. That is the long and short of WP:RSUW. Basically, we have a good consensus on-wiki that this report is not a reliable source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Which sources disagreed with the content and interpretations of this report? Are there really "dozens" of other sources that disagree with this? DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WSJ Article

U.S.-Funded Scientist Among Three Chinese Researchers Who Fell Ill Amid Early Covid-19 Outbreak

A prominent scientist who worked on coronavirus projects funded by the U.S. government is one of three Chinese researchers who became sick with an unspecified illness during the initial outbreak of Covid-19, according to current and former U.S. officials. 73.36.184.146 (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Useless. This is an encyclopaedia, not a doctor's diary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Animal Source Hyphothesis

A lot of time has gone by since the start of the pandemic. At this point, we can say a few things with extreme confidence:

- Patient zero was a chinese man in Wuhan 2019;

- Food sold at the Wuhan Seafood market showed clear signs of coronavirus contamination;

- However, there is NO EVIDENCE OF THE VIRUS COMING FROM BATS OR RACOONS OR WHATEVER.[1]

To make a long story short, the Nature article presented explains the results of multiple studies and concludes that non of them could confirm that animals in Wuhan were infected with SARS-CoV-2 - as in infected with the virus before their death.

At this point, it is indeed very wierd that the "Lab leak" hyphothesis is still labed as conspiratorial and "unsubstanciated speculation". Kabagocan (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Covid 19 Lab Leak

Add this: In February 2023, the FBI concluded that "origins of the COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from a lab incident in Wuhan, China". Later in February 2023, the US Department of Energy concluded with "low confidence" that "substantial circumstantial evidence favors COVID-19 emerging from a research-related incident," adding, "These revelations also further strengthen the need to uncover why high-ranking government officials, with help from Big Tech and the media, sought early on to silence any debate into a plausible theory of a lab incident while the Chinese Communist Party stonewalled investigations by the global scientific community.". The White House responded to the DoE, saying there is no consensus on the origin of Covid-19.. Philgoetz (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Change the last sentence to "The scientific opinion has now shifted in that an accidental leak is probable." All references are from 2020 or 21, hello it is now 2022. (Source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.0 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source of information about the pandemic. -Darouet (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is a joke. All references are from 2020 or 2021 and thus totally outdated. 87.207.154.21 (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thats the point. Gain a consensus, have the article locked down and gatekeep any new information with the argument "the consensus on the article has been established". DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Not an invalid point about our sources being older. And there is recent coverage. What about adding this to source #61 for "The scientific opinion that an accidental leak is possible, but unlikely, has remained steady."? Live Science is obviously not academic coverage, but it appears to be reliable, and that would provide updated sourcing for that statement. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes i think also this Science article would bolster: [2] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't watch the video, but while YouTube isn't a reliable source, Matt Ridley certainly is. He's one of the best science journalists alive today. Philgoetz (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source. The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic's official final report on the origin of the virus.

> A lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is most likely the origin of COVID-19. Current government mechanisms for overseeing this dangerous gain-of-function research are incomplete, severely convoluted, and lack global applicability. tsilb (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. No peer review, no editorial review. Not written by scientists. Partisan/political by its very nature. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

References

This article seems very sure there is consensus against lab leak but this consensus seems to be falling apart in the real world? https://x.com/MetroUK/status/1768623947023536264?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.127.52 (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theories and Unsubstantiated Speculation"

"The laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories[42][43] and unsubstantiated speculation about the origin of the virus." No, the laboratory has been the focus of formal theories and substantiated speculation. This article is now an excellent example of the dangers of prejudging theories in reference sources due to partisan bias. By all means, leave it this way. EGarrett01 (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Since reliable sources trump the opinion of random people on the internet, such as you, it is good the way it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, no. If a "random" editor points our inconsistencies and areas to improve, a personal attack is not an appropriate response/

@EGarrett01: you are correct, even our notice on the top of this page warns that there's no consensus to describe this as a "conspiracy theory", given the wide acceptance of such an explanation by mainstream science.

However, your accusations of partisanship are improper. It's not partisanship on Wikipedia – it's some editors always trying to be holier than the Pope, and more "scientific" than science itself. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to define /some versions/ as a conspiracy theory. There is consensus that the bioweapons theory is indeed a conspiracy theory (see consensus #6). The passage pointed out by OP is correct. The WIV is the subject of conspiracy theories (bioweapons) and unsubstantiated speculation (the other lab leak theories not based on conspiracies). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the passage I quoted doesn't draw a distinction there and makes it sound as though the major theory, the Lab Leak, is an "unsubstantiated" "conspiracy theory." It misleads readers, just as if a Donald Trump fan phrased a passage about Trump as "Trump has been the target of many false accusations of corruption" without pointing out that he has been the target of proven accusations as well. Note that this particular article has been edited, and I'm sure has been changed since I commented on it, so I'm only discussing the passage I brought up at the time it was there as a general example of misleading phrasing. (EDIT: Having reviewed the article, the highly misleading and inappropriately phrased section is still there) EGarrett01 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Rejecting one personal attack and replacing it by another personal attack? Peculiar. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I pointed out a phrase that is misleading. You yourself haven't added anything. The sources that treat the Lab Leak as a serious and potentially or even likely true theory are VERY authoritative, by any standard you could possibly claim. EGarrett01 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You pointed out a phrase you believe to be misleading, but you gave no valid reason why.

The sources that treat the Lab Leak as a serious and potentially or even likely true theory are VERY authoritative I won't accept your word for it, and nobody else should either until you actually name those sources. It's probably some random government agency in some random country again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

At the point in time I'm comenting, I find your dismissive tone very wierd and at no point were you able to give the benefit of the doubt here.

As I'm writing, more studies have been conducted on the "animal source" vs "lab leak" hyphothesi, and, still, Wuhan seafood market samples failed to provide evidence for the later.

On the other hand, it has come to light - in multiple instances - that the initial assertions made by lab oficials that the Institute did not support gain-of-functions research were untruthful. Moreover, it is clear that the "lab leak" hyphothesis, in it's extent as a scientific theory, was downplayed/denied by mainstream media. I can hear myself sounding like a lunatic when saying "mainstream media", but there really is no better way to describe it. Kabagocan (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What utter tosh. America politicians being daft does not count as reliable sourcing; Wikipedia relays accepted knowledge as published in authoritative, relevant sources. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There is an obvious bias when it comes to a politicians opinion on absolutely any topic - if it wins them more votes, they will turn the most mundane discussion into a controversial political topic. However, theSenate hering was conducted with several specialists, medical and researchers in the field. Are they not relevant sources?

Moreover, I quoted an article published on Nature`s magazine. Are Nature published studies/analysis not relevant content published in a authoritative source?

Also, as pointed out by the original poster for this discussion, the sources that supposedly rule out this hypohthesis as conspiratorial do not acctually speak to it at all. The only one that even mentions it is reference [44], in which the scientists simply say, in a nutshell, that "Allegations that COVID escaped from a Chinese lab make it harder for nations to collaborate on ending the pandemic." which is obvious and I agree. But it being controversial and detrimental to international cooperation does not mean it is not true. Kabagocan (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I assume the article will be updated with today's news that FBI decided it was a lab leak but were blocked from reporting it. Brian Josephson (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Not WP:DUE for this article, which is actually just about the institute, and is not focused on the lab leak theory itself. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)