Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slatersteven (talk | contribs) at 16:05, 11 March 2024 (→Earliest know infection date). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 30 November 2024 by Shibbolethink (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

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

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

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

References

Question regarding point 8 on current consensus of origin

Why is citing the FBI and Department of Energy WP:UNDUE ? I read through the page and I am just so confused as to why we are considering those sources to fall into it. Can someone explain? 2603:6011:2C00:3C5:24F6:9449:D06F:8CEE (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're covered in the section entitled "Intelligence agencies". Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
on WP:UNDUE ? I even did a word search and I could not find it. If I'm looking in the wrong place can you link it? 173.88.83.158 (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see it. I just don't understand the explanation of point 8 above. Why not include that in the lead? seems like it would be good to add since. 173.88.83.158 (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we had an WP:RFC on it and consensus was against including it in the lead. You can read the details at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 30#Include FBI and Department of Energy findings in the lead? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy" as of Feb 2024

  1. Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories.
  2. Scientists and media outlets widely dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.
  3. Although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not definitively known, arguments used in support of a laboratory leak are characteristic of conspiratorial thinking
  4. The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic, Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and this very closeness has made it easy for conspiracy theories to take root suggesting the laboratory must be the virus' origin.
  5. Prior lab leak incidents and conspiracy theories
  6. Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1/09, SARS, and Ebola have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory.
  7. While the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear than any can be sufficiently falsified to placate lab leak supporters, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking.
  8. By January 2020 some lab leak proponents were promoting a narrative with conspiracist components
  9. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, speculation about a laboratory leak was confined to conspiracy-minded portions of the internet
  10. Some proposed that the Chinese government and World Health Organization were operating together in a conspiracy.
  11. One conspiracy theory spread in support a laboratory origin suggests SARS-CoV-2 was developed for gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
  12. Researchers have said the politicization of the debate is making the process more difficult, and that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories".
  13. Proponents of the lab leak hypothesis reacted by accusing the agencies of conspiring with the Chinese, or of being incompetent.
  14. American laboratory, a notion long-promoted by Sachs, including on the podcast of conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
  15. After May 2021, some media organizations softened previous language that described the laboratory leak theory as "debunked" or a "conspiracy theory".
  16. At that time, the media did not distinguish between the accidental lab leak of a natural virus and bio-weapon origin conspiracy theories.
  17. In online discussions, various theories – including the lab leak theory – were combined to form larger, baseless conspiracy plots.
  18. Some members of the Chinese government have promoted a counter-conspiracy theory claiming that SARS‑CoV‑2 originated in the U.S. military installation at Fort Detrick.
  19. According to Paul Thacker (writing for the British Medical Journal), some scientists and reporters said that "objective consideration of COVID-19's origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a 'conspiracy theory.'"
  20. In February 2020, a letter was published in The Lancet authored by 27 scientists and spearheaded by Peter Daszak which described some alternate origin ideas as "conspiracy theories".
  21. Katherine Eban as having had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory ... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists".

72.203.186.106 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely crops up a lot in the sources eh. Wikipedia reflects that to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we change the article title back to COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:4:30ec:97d9:1b0c:3b60 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you use sources before or after the inflection point regarding the covid origin position? Because for a while researchers faced unscientific pressures to adopt a certain position, even under threat of losing their jobs, reputation, careers. On the other hand, more recently even the FBI has adopted a pro-leak criterion and the WHO has called for research also regarding the lab leak, something it would not do if it was a conspiracy theory. Although it looks you are basing your opinion in some outdated sources. For example, regarding February 20, you need to read the article Lancet letter (COVID-19), letter in which there was a worrying degree of undisclosed conflicts of interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all directly from the wikipedia article. They clearly state this is a conspiracy theory. 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is time to update the article instead. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sourced information for the start of the spread https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada lab leaks

Nothing to do with the COVID-19 lab leak theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarnishedPath (talk • contribs)

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.


It has been confirmed today Chinese collusion around Covid 19 with a researcher Dr xiangguo Qiu, her husband Keding Cheng, and the head of virology all being confirmed to have stolen Covid-19 and supplied it to the Chinese government as can be seen in a announcement made here by the Canadian government. https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1mnxepYjaaqJX

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/canadian-scientist-sent-deadly-viruses-to-wuhan-lab-months-before-rcmp-asked-to-investigate-1.5609582

it has also been confirmed that the virus was released at the wuhan military games https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/ 

where solders fell Ill https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-army-returned-wuhan-military-21988912.amp

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5528381 and brought it home with them.

the Canadian government colluded with the PLA to cover it up While paying China off to remain silent by investing millions into a “vaccination” that never came about.

There was also a entire propaganda campaign from the military around it https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-leaders-saw-pandemic-as-unique-opportunity-to-test-propaganda-techniques-on-canadians-forces-report-says/wcm/8d7dc4b0-cf3b-425e-ab86-a35879ff5644/amp/

2001:1970:4AE5:A300:A13B:D3C6:5D5D:5078 (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was the original lab leak story as published by Great Game India (I believe). It's really too silly to have attracted much attention from sensible sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may not directly prove a lab leak but this document confirms it was stolen from a lab in Canada shortly before the release https://www.theglobeandmail.com/files/editorial/politics/nw-na-labs/winnipeg-scientists-doc.pdf 2605:8D80:13B8:457B:3C93:356F:7B87:8870 (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But "it" has nothing to do with SARS-CoV-2. This is all covered at Xiangguo Qiu. Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Formerly"

"conspiracy theory" appears throughout the media and is well-sourced, but only up until 2023, when the language changed. Now, even the CDC's Anthony Fauci testified that it was not a "conspiracy theory".[8]

I propose that we add language in an efn, because it will be confusing to readers who see sources discussing a "conspiracy theory" and a normal "theory", both from reputable sources. DenverCoder19 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't say "it" is a conspiracy theory, because "it" is a huge collection of different things, many of which are conspiracy theories. Like all the bioweapon stuff for example. Bon courage (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. Interested editors may participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. TarnishedPathtalk 09:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada lab leak continued

Still has nothing to do with the COVID-19 lab leak theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarnishedPath (talk • contribs)

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.


This part is a expansion on the “conspiracy” as it actually explains the origins of Covid-19 to have partly came from a Canadian lab right before the leak which fits into the biological weapon theory as well as the release and spread of it at the wuhan military games.

The fact her husband was a reacher for Covid-19 while they allowed unrestricted access to Chinese government officials and sent viruses to the wuhan lab of virology right before the outbreak at the wuhan military games with soldiers confirmed to have came back sick with Covid-19 is a very good foundation for this theory and is all backed up by government documents. The only un confirmed parts is that they sent Covid-19 research and specifically the Covid-19 virus.

“Keding Cheng, a biologist who has published papers on coronavirus strains such as SARS-CoV, and Chinese students working under them had their security access revoked for Canada’s only Level-4 lab, a facility equipped for research on the deadliest diseases.”

https://factcheck.afp.com/chinese-spies-did-not-steal-deadly-coronavirus-canada

2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to add text explaining why this another stupid conspiracy theory? Is the AFP fact check the best source for that? Bon courage (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Earliest confirmed cases

Closing this discussion which a) has nothing to do with the COVID-19 lab leak theory and b) uses primary and deprecated sources as part of its argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarnishedPath (talk • contribs)

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.


this is a study on The impact of the World Military Games on the COVID-19 pandemic

“It is clear that travel was a major factor in the rapid dissemination of COVID-19 disease. It has been proposed that Wuhan, China, was the epicentre of the pandemic. The World Military Games took place from the 18th to 27th of October 2019 in Wuhan, China. Over 140 nations with 9308 athletes participated with over 300,000 attendees, volunteers and staff [1–4]. This study examined the hypothesis that the large gathering in a pandemic epicentre was a factor in the spread of COVID-19 disease.”

“There is a correlation between the number of individuals who travelled to the event and the number of COVID-19 cases in the country to which they returned. Whether this explains the rapid spread of the pandemic or not is not known definitively. However, this study shows a mathematical model to predict the number of COVID-19 cases in a country as a result of each infected individual travelling to that country.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/

“A Canadian military officer who fears he was at the 'Ground Zero' of Covid two months before Chinaofficially acknowledged the virus has demanded an investigation into the suspicious outbreak of illness there. The long-serving officer, who cannot be named as he is still in the forces, was among the scores of athletes who fell sick with a debilitating illness after attending the World Military Games in Wuhan in October 2019. He said foreign competitors found the city of 11 million people 'like a ghost town', and so many cases of a mysterious virus afflicted the Canadian team that a quarantine section was set up on their military flight back home. The officer, who is still suffering from the effects of his illness despite previous high levels of fitness, said a military-appointed doctor later said he almost certainly caught Covid. His revelations fuel concerns the Chinese government covered up the outbreak – with devastating consequences. The Beijing regime says the first confirmed case was December 8, three weeks before the World Health Organisation was tipped off by sources in Taiwan. Several European athletes attending the Games, which attracted more than 9,000 competitors from 100 countries, have said they developed Covid-like symptoms in Wuhan. Reports also suggested Iranian participants died soon after returning home.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10382127/amp/Canadian-military-officer-calls-probe-ground-zero-Covid-outbreak-Wuhan-games.html

He said he got “very sick 12 days after we arrived, with fever, chills, vomiting, insomnia.… On our flight to come home (at the end of October), 60 Canadian athletes on the flight were put in isolation (at the back of the plane) for the 12-hour flight. We were sick with symptoms ranging from coughs to diarrhea and in between.” After returning to Canada, the source said family members became ill and his symptoms worsened, including fatigue, nosebleeds, fever and pain when he breathed. He went to a military doctor. “I was tested for various issues, but never for anything respiratory,” he said. “A few weeks later, I offered to take an antibody test but was ignored.” https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-canadian-forces-have-right-to-know-if-they-got-covid-at-the-2019-military-world-games-in-wuhan/wcm/ade60c90-1062-4670-a633-dcf4c4f22956/amp/

“Several European athletes attending the Games also reported the development of COVID-like symptoms in Wuhan, while some reports suggest Iranian competitors died soon after returning home. As news of the pandemic spread, many of the athletes spoke to each other to discuss if they were early victims of the virus – yet they were not tested. The whistleblower claimed an email was also sent out, ordering them to not speak publicly about their concerns. “Until we know how this terrible crisis began, it would be unwise and self-defeating not to turn over every stone,” said Jamie Metzl, a World Health Organisation adviser. “It would shock most people to learn there has been no comprehensive international investigation into the origins of the pandemic,” he continued. “This is unacceptable and leaves the entire world and future generations at risk.”

https://torontosun.com/news/world/canadian-military-officer-demands-probe-into-wuhans-ground-zero-covid-outbreak/wcm/6b5d005a-9b0e-4535-9045-82545df89135/amp/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Canada lab leak 3

Yes. This is a valid theory with lots of evidence backing it. Funny how you think you are the arbiter of the subject abusing your powers and locking topics before any discussion can be had. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor above suggested this was covered at Xiangguo Qiu. After having a read myself, I can confirm that is the case and that it has nothing to do with the contents of this article. TarnishedPathtalk 09:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn’t a single mention of Covid 19 or her husband “Keding Cheng, a biologist who has published papers on coronavirus strains such as SARS-CoV, and Chinese students working under them had their security access revoked for Canada’s only Level-4 lab, a facility equipped for research on the deadliest diseases.”
https://factcheck.afp.com/chinese-spies-did-not-steal-deadly-coronavirus-canada
Nor is there any mention of the wuhan institute of virology or any connection to the lab leak theory. It barely scratches the surface of all the information released from the 600 page document https://www.theglobeandmail.com/files/editorial/politics/nw-na-labs/winnipeg-scientists-doc.pdf 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media section

“although unpublished government data suggested the earliest cases were detected in mid-November” I have provided multiple sources to prove it is early October… 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you completely lost me when you used a source which is completely deprecated on Wikipedia (Daily Fail) because of its publishing of fake news. If you have a specific edit request I suggest you make a specific request in the form 'please change x to y' using one of the templates as described at WP:MAKINGEREQ. TarnishedPathtalk 09:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What source is this “daily fail” because I listed multiple https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Daily Mail. In any case I suggest you refer to what I wrote above if you have a specific edit request which doesn't involve primary or deprecated sources. TarnishedPathtalk 10:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest know infection date

  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): the first known infection date in the media section
  • Why it should be changed: there are earlier know infection dates by over a month
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/

2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That source is not WP:MEDRS and is in any case only airing a novel hyphothesis. Bon courage (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s definitely a RS… https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-canadian-forces-have-right-to-know-if-they-got-covid-at-the-2019-military-world-games-in-wuhan/wcm/ade60c90-1062-4670-a633-dcf4c4f22956/amp/ and here’s another one https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10382127/amp/Canadian-military-officer-calls-probe-ground-zero-Covid-outbreak-Wuhan-games.html 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If is not did, and the Daily MAil, really? Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1213193309"