User talk:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak

Department of Energy assessment

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.amp.html 2A00:1370:8184:1CE9:E784:E0E4:EA4B:73F6 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Summary: USA's nuclear regulator changes its opinion on a virology topic, with "low confidence". –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The United States Department of Energy oversees a network of national laboratories and technical facilities dedicated to research and development. A key point of discussion is the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically whether it was most likely the result of a laboratory leak. The Department of Energy (DOE) has concluded that this scenario is plausible. The FBI reached a similar conclusion, though with "moderate confidence." However, the U.S. government has not yet reached a consensus on the precise origins of the pandemic. 2601:3C4:4300:9A0:4CF7:E635:7751:7B4C (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The FBI reached a similar conclusion, though with "moderate confidence." Summary: USA's police share an opinion on a virology topic. Next, perhaps we should ask virologists their opinion on a police topic such as kettling? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has significant expertise in biomedicine, particularly through the FBI Laboratory and the Hazardous Materials Response Unit (HMRU). The FBI Laboratory employs biochemistry and biology experts who handle cases involving DNA analysis, bioterrorism, and toxicological evidence. The HMRU specializes in responding to incidents with hazardous biological agents, supporting investigations related to pathogens and toxins. These units work closely with agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to enhance national preparedness against bioterrorism.

The FBI concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from a lab-related incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. This assessment, based on FBI intelligence and scientific analysis, aligns with findings from the US Department of Energy. 2601:3C4:4300:9A0:F5F6:8F3C:5B24:BA31 (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Update?

The WP:MEDRS sources quoted in your essay are from 2020 and 2021. Do you have any plans on adding some more recent sources? TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing another survey of top sources might be a good idea. I haven't done it yet though since it would take effort. Some of my ideas for how to do this would be to skim all the sources on the first page of PubMed searches such as covid origin and covid laboratory leak and see what those are saying nowadays. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath. You got me going down a rabbit hole. I ended up adding 5 additional sources just now, and my thoughts about them. The "covid origin" search wasn't too useful because those all just briefly mentioned zoonosis or the Huanan Seafood Market and didn't mention the lab leak theory at all. The "covid laboratory leak" search was good and I got my sources from that. Happy reading. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I read bits of the first couple that came up when searching "covid laboratory leak" and quickly decided that perhaps I'd leave it for another time. I'll have a read of what you've added. TarnishedPath^talk 10:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, very good reading. I'm going to use some of those quotes when one of the current batch of SPAs starts an RFC. Thankyou very much. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Applause from me too. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hey, User:Novem Linguae, first of all let me say I like this page and I think it's helpful. Kind of piggybacking on the above, would you be okay with adding an update regarding the various political claims being made (with varying degrees of "confidence" or "official-ness") by obviously non-MEDRS and questionable provenance? I'm mostly talking about the fact that there are now US government agencies being "forced" to release statements that they believe the lab leak was the most likely based on virtually no evidence whatsoever (and in some cases, merely based on the absence of a confirmation of zoonotic origin yet).

As examples of news that's been cited by various people trying to report on Wikipedia that it's "official":

• CNN article that reports Two sources said that the Department of Energy assessed in the intelligence report that it had “low confidence” the Covid-19 virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan.
• NYT article that reports There is no new intelligence behind the agency’s shift, officials said. Rather it is based on the same evidence it has been chewing over for months. - it was not an actual intelligence change, just their new director wanted to read into the intelligence what he wanted to, and so he forced them to do so and publish it.
• US House Oversight report reporting on Dept of State documents that states The redacted documents showed numerous, highly suggestive subject lines including: followed by 6 examples of completely irrelevant documents.

Ultimately, I was about to consider making my own essay regarding why these assessments, while they may be due weight to include in very specific circumstances, do not mean that the lab leak has been "confirmed". In fact, in the first source, people "conveniently" ignore the fact that it is "low confidence" when they claim that it's confirmed. However, I think it may be ideal to have it all in one essay - hence I'm asking if you may consider adding a portion about why these are irrelevant/political (or if you'd be okay with me doing so)?

Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for the message. I'd like to keep this particular essay focused on WP:MEDRS quality sources, which outrank pretty much everything else when it comes to sourcing the origin of the pandemic. Hope that's OK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely - perhaps I was a bit unclear. I'm not suggesting to add in "what other sources are okay", but to explain explicitly why some specific types of non-MEDRS are inappropriate for this case, since it'd be nice to be able to link to an explanation of why those sources are bad and give explanations/examples of actual MEDRS compliant sources in the same link. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. An old version of this essay talked a bit about lower quality sources, but that section did not survive my latest rewrite. That latest rewrite removed a lot of explanation and refocused on quotations of the sources. However, some of my other essays talk about problems with poor sources: User:Novem Linguae/Essays/MEDRS simple explanation#These sources fail MEDRS and User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Studies are not reliable, for example. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

"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, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24 § Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK until a consensus is reached. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

NY Times piece detailing scientists' efforts to dispel ("mislead" on) lab leak

[1] seems to be a fairly damning dossier of attempts to downplay the lab leak hypothesis by scientists, including the slanting of articles published in WP:MEDRS and misleading at least 1 reporter. Park3r (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

A really good example of why newspaper opeds are not suitable sources for a serious encyclopedia. For a take from an actual subject mstter expert see e.g.[2] Bon courage (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That's an involved person (fortunately Bluesky isn't a source we'd ever use either) and I'm sure we'll see a retraction forthcoming from the NYT. Those are serious allegations. Park3r (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, an actual expert rather than a sociologist. This is just another silly NYT opinion piece. Luckily we have much better sources. Bon courage (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Since the piece is about a cover-up, not virology, I’m not sure why her qualifications matter.

The issue isn’t who’s raising the concerns—it’s whether the concerns are valid. Park3r (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

We just reflect the WP:BESTSOURCES, which a newpaper OpEd is not. That done, whether something is "valid" is really above Wikipedia's pay grade - although it does appear this particular piece has some issues in that regard. Bon courage (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Concerns about the reliability of sources are very much within the ambit of Wikipedia. Park3r (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, but Wikipedia isn't going be buying into the "science can't be trusted for science" anti-science stance, even if it is sweeping the USA. On Wikipedia, as in higher education, there is a well understood pecking order of WP:SOURCETYPES. One of the troubles with LL is (to be blunt) inexperienced and/or under-educated editors who just don't get it, and who have been brainwashed by a diet of news and social media, coming here to WP:RGW. This essay here is a good corrective to that. Bon courage (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

'Use of a risk assessment tool to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2', Risk Analysis (2024)

This peer reviewed study published in ‘Risk Analysis’ did not get the attention it deserved. It indicates “a greater likelihood of an unnatural than natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. This risk assessment cannot prove the origin of SARS-CoV-2 but shows that the possibility of a laboratory origin cannot be easily dismissed.”

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14291 ItIsAlwaysThere (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Appears to be a study rather than a secondary source such as a review article. This Newsweek article describes it as a a controversial new research paper. It does not appear to be the same caliber as the review articles cited in this essay. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yup: primary research and so an unreliable source, useless for writing an encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a secondary source about it: https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/covid-19-unnatural-origin-theory

Anyway, it is simply not true that there are no high quality, peer reviewed scientific studies that conclude that an unnatural origin is more likely than a natural one, as I read on these wikipedia talk pages.

More and more scientists starting to speak up. For example, highly respected French virologist Christine Rouzioux recently said during the press conference of the report of the French Academy of Medecine: “Il y a plus d'arguments pour la deuxième hypothèse (d'origine humaine) que la première".

Who are you to keep that out of wikipedia? ItIsAlwaysThere (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the knowledge found in high-quality sources (as listed in this Essay) rather than surfing the discourse. Lab leak stuff is only a hot topic there, along with aliens, Bigfoot, chemtrails etc. Bon courage (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Bon courage, I disagree with your characterization of the lab leak hypothesis as comparable to conspiracy theories like aliens, Bigfoot, or chemtrails. Many respected scientists and organizations, including the WHO, have called for serious investigation into all possible origins of SARS-CoV-2, explicitly including the lab leak hypothesis.

You dismissed the study I cited from Risk Analysis (https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.14291) as primary research and thus unreliable for Wikipedia. While I understand Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources, this peer-reviewed paper--published in a reputable journal -concludes there's 'a greater likelihood of an unnatural than natural origin' based on a risk assessment. It's not definitive proof, but it's a legitimate contribution to the scientific discourse that shouldn't be ignored outright.

Secondary coverage, like this article from BBC Science Focus (https:|| www.sciencefocus.com/news/covid-19-unnatural-origin-theory), also discusses the study, showing it's part of a broader conversation.

Moreover, experts like Christine Rouzioux, a highly respected French virologist, have publicly supported the idea that facts, arguments, evidence leans toward an unnatural origin. At a press conference for the French Academy of Medicine, she stated that'There are more arguments for the second hypothesis [human origin] than the first'. This isn't fringe opinion-it's expert testimony from a credible source.

I'm not arguing that the lab leak hypothesis is proven or should dominate the article. My point is that dismissing it as equivalent to pseudoscience misrepresents the current state of scientific inquiry. Wikipedia should reflect the range of high-quality perspectives, including those from peer-reviewed studies and expert statements, even if they challenge the prevailing narrative.

The goal is truth through evidence, not exclusion of plausible hypotheses. ItIsAlwaysThere (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Alien life is a serious hypothesis worthy of "serious investigation. Doesn't mean little green men crashed as Roswell. Wikipedia simply reflects the quality sources. As in most fields (climate science, alien life, vaccines), there are outlier scientists by the dozen. Bon courage (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Just because someone publishes a bold new study about something doesn't make the study a high quality source. Unfortunately, single studies are not reliable. Please have a look at WP:MEDRS. Through many years of investigation and discussion, Wikipedians have figured out that the most reliable medical sources are review articles, position statements from national and international expert bodies, and textbooks. Not single studies, which often have poor methodology so make them run afoul of the replication crisis. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You mention “position statements from national expert bodies”. Well, the French Academy of Medicine is a national expert body. Its stance, like virologist Christine Rouzioux's statement, qualifies as a high-quality source, and it confirms what the peer reviewed study by world renowned pandemic expert Raina MacIntyre concluded. ItIsAlwaysThere (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the French Academy of Medicine report, sounds like the report concludes that the hypotheses of natural transmission via an intermediary animal and a laboratory accident remain open. Its report highlights the lack of definitive evidence in favor of either and emphasizes the need for a rigorous and factual approach. Source. Yes, some top quality sources do conclude that both hypothesis are still on the table. This is reflected in the lab leak essay. For example, 2025 search result 3 also concludes that both hypotheses are still on the table. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

And that’s why I ask you to change in the wikipedia page ‘Origin of SARS-CoV-2’ that the lab leak hypothesis should not be placed under “Unlikely scenarios”. Can anyone do that? If not, why not? ItIsAlwaysThere (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Because the knowledge in the WP:BESTSOURCES is that it is, as best, an unlikely scenario. Our articles have sources you know. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record. Do you consider the French Academy of Medecine a high quality source? Yes or no? ItIsAlwaysThere (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Major public health body with some important outputs; what they publishes ranges from the unreliable (primary research) to best WP:MEDRS (clinical overviews). Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)