Talk:Origin of COVID-19/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Article should mention the WHO's history of supporting Chinese statements right up front

Multiple press reports in first-class sources say that the WHO has supported the Chinese Government's version of events about the pandemic.[1][2][3]. The portion of the article about the WHO's investigation needs to make that clear, right up front. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS needs to be avoided, as do dubious sources like twitter. Checking the first source given, it quotes a scientist as saying "It seems the WHO team and their Chinese collaborators are taking a measured approach, weighing the available data appropriately and talking to the right people". Perhaps that would be something to mirror? Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing dubious about citing Twitter for saying that the WHO said something the WHO said on its Twitter account, particularly when the Atlantic source cites the same tweet. I am not proposing citing that tweet in the article directly, and my original addition did not. However, I believe the tweet does show, succinctly and irrefutably, why the WHO cannot be treated as an authority without discussing, right up front, their history of misleading the world about the pandemic. About the Nature article, the key point is the one they make right up front in their article -- that the WHO team is echoing what the Chinese media and government say. I have no objections to taking additional material from that Nature article. But our emphasis should be the same as theirs. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The WHO have verified what China have been saying, seems to be the message. You set out what you "believe" but we need to follow sources without twisting them to editors' beliefs. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

How did we go, in less than an hour, from "the WHO's history of supporting Chinese statements" to "their history of misleading the world"? This makes no sense at all, unless you believe that the Chinese government is lying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We can include something like "According to Kathy Gilsinan, reporter from The Atlantic, the portraying of some aspects of the pandemic by the WHO shows a vulnerability in accuracy that stems from the unedited information misinformation it receives from countries with a history of opacity". The question is if this is the best entry to include such a specific statement, and if so, if including it gives it due weight. If this vulnerability is widely acknowledged in RS, I support inclusion. Forich (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Still seems like WP:UNDUE cherry picking. Who cares what this journalist thinks? And why not "pick" her statement that "The WHO has also shown, however, that it can walk the line between the need for cooperation and information-sharing from member states and the need to hold them accountable for mistakes"? Besides, this is not specific to "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19", which is meant to be the topic of this article. The whole thing savours of tiresome political point-making. Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Since when is receiving "unedited information" considered a problem in scientific circles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is two more sources discussing the issue in depth, this time form the NYT. [4][5]. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

On the investigation itself, the first source is quite good on how outlandish conspiracy theories in the US have complicated things because they sow distrust, but I'm not seeing support for the POV of your previous edits. As the second source says, the WHO is in part a diplomatic organisation so tends to be ... diplomatic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, I meant to say "misinformation" but by mistake I confused "information that has not been fact checked" with the term "unedited information", sorry. I striked the word above. Forich (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we start appropiate steps to examine whether WP:MEDRS#Bias applies to WHO and its investigations into the origin of SARS-CoV-2. For example, based on the sources above from NYTimes, can we conclude to there being clear COI because China finances the WHO? Moreover, it is not relevant what we think, but are reliable secondary sources calling out the WHO investigations biased? Forich (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair to point out that the bias can come from outside China, too. CGTN is calling out bias in the way international media reports on the WHO mission. Video link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forich (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

CGTN is not a reliable source. This whole conversation is bizarre. The WHO is an international membership organization funded largely by the world's richer nation states. Wikipedia should report what they say and not sleuth around trying to work up some kind of counter-narrative from weak sources. If there are other good sources on "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" we can report those too - something about the delicate intersection of health facts and political considerations faced by the WHO could be useful. The original push to try and put some kind of warning text in the lede implying that the WHO can't be trusted because China is just WP:PROFRINGE conspiracy theorising. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Forich, I've summarized some sources below. the common theme appears to be that there is a COI between the WHO and china. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a Conflict of interest there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

For example, the statement The W.H.O., by design, is beholden to its member countries . . . is sourcing for a conflict of interest. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The WHO is beholden to all of its member countries, not just China. I see no claim that the WHO has a COI with China that it doesn't also have with all of the other members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Another specific example of a WHO inacurracy: It was wrong for Dr. Tedros to publicly praised both Mr. Xi and China’s pneumonia surveillance system, and to declare that the timing of calling an emergency was not late [6]. Whether this inaccuracy was a simple flop or a systematic derivation from COI, is unclear. Before any editor call me out for doing cherry-picking, a caveat: this is a simple process of extracting quotes and facts from sources, and putting them here for discussion, of course we need to include a balanced examination of the reliability of the sources that portrays with NPOV the narrative. Forich (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The latest sources about the WHO's current statements, show that it does not support the frozen food chain transmission as the origin, so those arguments trying to cast doubt on the WHO appear to be self-defeating (this article is also not a news report timeline). One of the cited sources above explains its journalist's concern: "Still, the findings announced Tuesday gave Beijing a public relations win as it comes under attack from officials in the United States and elsewhere for its initial efforts to conceal the outbreak." Even if this was true, since there's no evidence of malpractice, what value does it have other than to push the idea that the WHO must be wrong or not trustable? —PaleoNeonate – 08:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's the point? Especially if you're an American with no real knowledge of medicine, the WHO is just one of those agencies that you can't control and that might do something that affects your life (like recommending against international travel right after you paid for a vacation) without seeming to provide you personally with much direct benefit. You don't see the benefits that they provide you, because incidents like "cute kid didn't infect you with measles when you went to Disney World" is invisible. A lot of Americans assume that the WHO is not trustworthy, just like a lot of Americans look at incidents like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study or the 1976 swine flu outbreak and decide that US medical institutions aren't trustworthy. We shouldn't let these personal fears affect the overall article.

Also, if you don't know anything about medicine, then you don't know just how common it is to have someone in the hospital with pneumonia and not know what the pathogen is. If you know about this, then you would say, "Okay, you think they declared an emergency too late. When would you have declared it, based on only the information you had at that time? And how often would your timing result in false-positive lockdowns in your own country?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but good points, —PaleoNeonate – 21:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

One more example of disinformation from China transmitted by the WHO, this time during a 2020 press conferences, from [7]: According to an opinion piece by biologist Richard Ebright published on The Telegraph, Chinese influence on the WHO is exemplified by the response that a WHO executive, Bruce Aylward, gave in 2020 when he failed to answer a journalist’s question about Taiwan’s efficient response to the virus, "first claiming not to have heard the question, then apparently cutting off the connection, and then, when it was restored, responding 'Well, we've already talked about China.'". Forich (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand how the One-China policy affects that situation? Refusing to be quoted talking about Taiwan is not an example of "Chinese influence on the WHO". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

As a result of this discussion, in which none of the rebuttals have been convincing, I will include this phrase at the top of the WHO section: "The WHO mission's credibility has been strongly questioned by media, given its alleged proclivity to side with China." Forich (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, please explain why did you revert my edit, if you feel it was not NPOV the right way to fix it is to improve tha attribution part, not deleting the claim altogether. Forich (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• My concern is more fundamental: WP:NORN is policy so editorializing from sources which don't support text is a problem. You're inserting your own view into Wikipedia in Wikipedia's voice. Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn on this. This sort of editorializing is not appropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is IMO not appropriate, and it is specifically not Wikipedia:Due weight on a talking point that's put forward only by a small, politically skewed fraction of media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In which none of the rebuttals have been convincing WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTNEWS are unimportant if someone says so? —PaleoNeonate – 21:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have initiated a discussion about this topic at the RS Noticeboard. Please comment there. Forich (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Duly closed as patently WP:POINTY. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Below is a list of sources. Others should feel free to add to it.

• Biden Admin. concerns about WHO: We have deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them.[8]
• Reuters article about the Biden Admin. concerns: [9]
• NYT: The W.H.O., by design, is beholden to its member countries and has long struck a diplomatic tone in dealing with the Chinese government, which is notoriously resistant to outside scrutiny.[10]
• NYT again, about a previous WHO investigation into the source of Covid: What the team members did not know was that they would not be allowed to investigate the source at all. Despite Dr. Ryan’s pronouncements, and over the advice of its emergency committee, the organization’s leadership had quietly negotiated terms that sidelined its own experts. They would not question China’s initial response or even visit the live-animal market in the city of Wuhan where the outbreak seemed to have originated.[11]
• The Atlantic, entire article about the WHO's pattern of repeating Chinese claims, regardless of whether or not said claims are true, including the WHO tweet: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus.[12]

Adoring nanny (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• * NYT, "Some scientists question WHO inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic [13] Forich (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of these are bad. For example: The NYT article from last November says that the outbreak seemed to originate (note their use of the past tense) in a live-animal market. We already know that the virus was in circulation in multiple parts of that city before it was spread in that location. So why would you actually go there to investigate? Maybe the journalists wanted a nice photo-op, showing the scientists staring thoughtfully at a fish seller? Maybe that newspaper (NB: not the WHO, but The New York Times) wanted to push China's story about the virus maybe originating in wild animals in a neighboring country and reaching China via imported food? There's no scientific point to going there, so they didn't. Why is this supposed to be a problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, sure, here is also recent article in Politico [14]. It says, for example, that Chinese scientists "had created a new model for studying SARS-CoV-2 by creating mice with human-like lung characteristics by using the CRISPR gene-editing technology to give the mice lung cells with the human ACE2 receptor" "well before the coronavirus outbreak—research they hadn’t disclosed and continued not to admit to". Personally, I have no idea if this is true, but definitely something to think about. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's a rather misleading ellipsis. They announced the "new model for studying SARS-CoV-2" in July 2020. The "well before" part is that some US officials believe that some research that was not specific to SARS-CoV-2, but which turned out to be helpful, was done before the outbreak. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Telegraph (Opinion), "The World Health Organization's appeasement of China has made another..." [15] Forich (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Wall Street Journal, "How the WHO's hunt for COVID's origins stumbled in China" [16] Forich (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Could we avoid having to base our coverage of scientific investigations on popular press pieces? If the veto over scientists had an impact, besides being a mere ad hominem used to insinuate that the investigation is somehow deficient, that would be a great addition. But the simple news-facty sounding sentence doesn't add much otherwise. Additionally, uncritically giving opinions ("that the investigation was not full or impartial") in Wikivoice fails NPOV; and if it's only given by the WSJ piece (a US newspapers, reliable for news, but leaning to the right; with the usual caution for opinions), it's UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Newsweek, The article name is "Humans, not animals likely took the COVID virus to Wuhan, contrary to China's claims", [17] and it is an opinion piece, in which Rowan Jacobsen, a journalist, says "But the origins investigation is a joint exercise with China, which closely negotiated every step of the process, retained veto power over the selection of team members, and required that conclusions in the final report be a consensus between the Chinese and international delegations". Forich (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece by a non-expert in the popular press. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• CBS News (interview), the article name is "Transcript: Scott Gottlieb discusses coronavirus on "Face the Nation," March 28, 2021", [18], in which Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner, says It looks like the WHO report was an attempt to try to support the China narrative, Chinese narrative around this- this origin of the vaccine. . Forich (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Still about politics, not science, not MEDRS. Of course we can mention it in the misinformation article along with the reminder of the politics. And speculation at it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Lancet. "Calls for transparency after SARS-CoV-2 origins report". [19]

The critical reception of the WHO joint Study deserves inclusion in this article. A due proportion seems to me to be one or two phrases, given: the amount of google search results it returns, the non-political nature of prominent critics, and the strong reliability of the sources who deemed it worthy of publishing the critiques (i.e. Reuters and CNN). The wording can be discussed, of course, in that it should convey that the WHO mission results did some things right (i.e. gathering new insights, balance the diplomatic act of entering China, etc) and some thing deficiently (examples stated in the Reuters and CNN sources). I edited this criticism recently and it was reverted on the exaggerated claim that it infringed almost every major Wiki policy out there, which it clearly didn't. Forich (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Origin of virus

Is the following edit (or equivalent) (see copy below) worth adding - or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC) "On 26 March 2021, former CDC Chief Robert Redfield claimed that the Covid-19 virus "more likely than any alternative" leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China in September 2019. WHO had earlier claimed that this possibility was "unlikely"."

ADD (03/30/2021): => FWIW - Latest WSJ News re Lab Leak origin of Covid => "Yet enough already is known about the WIV suggest this [ie, that the recent WHO lab leak explanation as "extremely unlikely"] lacks credibility." - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This is an editorial piece, not news. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

ADD (04/17/2021): => seems the following may also be relevant here (already added to the article) => On 14 April 2021, the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, and other officials of the Biden Administration, said that they had not ruled out the possibility of a laboratory accident as the origin of the Covid-19 virus. - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No that would be a terrifying level of WP:UNDUE. Has he published a paper about it in a peer-reviewed journal? Or is he just generating waves of hot air in the popular press? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Also Robert_R._Redfield#Assessments (and the sources linked from there) sincerely puts doubts into his credibility... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Even the cited Bloomberg article makes it clear that this remains a WP:FRINGE theory, and directly referring to this fact is the bare minimum requirement for considering the content for articles. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added it to the article about misinformation, but it might be a bit too much over there too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: now, the duplicate discussions (the usual suspects objected at the misinformation page) at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#Former_Trump_official_promoting_lab_leak_misinformation and Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Origin_of_virus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @RandomCanadian and others that this does not belong in this article. "Some political appointee said something" is not "an investigation into the origins of COVID-19". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems the following may be relevant here as well => latest "official" news from WHO re the origin of the virus has now been reported - and suggests the source of the virus is "likely" animals, and that the lab leak source is “extremely unlikely”, although "some scientists say that is an important question to explore" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Director General of the WHO just came out saying they're actively investigating a possible lab-leak. To re-iterate, the WHO is literally investigating a lab-leak as a possible origin of the virus. It absolutely belongs in this article.68.148.28.136 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Per recent edits to the SARS-CoV-2 article, it is currently covered in the Reservoir and zoonotic origin section. IMO, this broadly meets the WP:FRINGE criteria for an alternate scientific hypothesis, and is given appropriate prominence and context with the current consensus view. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Another new investigation

Please add:

https://millercenter.org/covidcpg

Sources:

https://www.nbc29.com/2021/04/15/miller-center-launches-covid-commission-planning-group/

https://news.virginia.edu/content/broad-covid-commission-planning-group-will-be-based-uvas-miller-center

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/marc-lipsitch-named-to-expert-covid-planning-group/

CutePeach (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

When this gets reported in more than local news we might have something to add. So far, looking at it, it is more of "an effort to create an analysis of lessons learned during the coronavirus pandemic"; especially from the perspective of public policy (which would match with the known specialisations of the Miller Center of Public Affairs). It might be WP:TOOSOON to report about this here, but if and when this gets to the big hitters (likely when the report gets published, which is surely at least several months from now) we might have something. Anyways, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

New article by Zhi

Zhi (2021) concludes that "The scientific community strongly dismisses these unproven and misleading speculations (on the lab leak hypotheses) and generally accepts that the SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin and was selected either in an animal host before zoonotic transfer, or in humans following zoonotic transfer.". This was published on a reputable journal, Infectious Diseases & Immunity. This is also an explicit and recent mention and qualification of the lab leak hypothesis on a top journal, passing peer review. Nonetheless, I am hesitant on considering it MEDRS because the author (Zhi Zhengli) works for the investigated institute, what do you think? Forich (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct, it's not WP:INDEPENDENT. Adoring nanny (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

See duplicate discussion at Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_29_April_2021. Also please don't start new discussions in old threads. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. The discussion you point to is slightly different as it refers to the claim that WIV has been at the center of controversies on the virus origin, while my edit in this page refers to adding a possible MEDRS (now I know we can't use it) that sources the current mainstream consensus. I am not sure if you last request (don't start new discussions in old threads) refers to me creating a new section in this talk page instead of putting it in an old related thread, or to me editing the section at Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_29_April_2021. Forich (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade journalistic investigation on the emergence of Covid calls attention on Andersen (2020) flaws

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.

---

Nicholas Wade, a journalist, has published here his own investigation on the emergence of Covid, by piecing together clues using a deductive method, perhaps unscientific. He ends up favoring the lab leak hypothesis as the best explanation. I am fully aware of Wade's internet post not being MEDPUB, and I only bring it here because he cites important references that cast doubts on the credibility of some of Andersen et al (2020) results, a paper many MEDRS rely on when discussing SARS-CoV-2 origin. All I ask is we evaluate if triangulating Wade's sources allow us to update the current scientific consensus regarding Andersen's view about the virus origin. Forich (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a WP:SELFPUB, so not super useful in this context. If you can find a WP:RS within his blog post, that could be worthwhile to include. Otherwise, nothing of value to us for improving articles. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, WP:REDFLAG also comes to mind: exceptional claims require exceptional evidence (i.e. we'd need a published article in a high-quality journal). If these "doubts" are only sourced to a self-published post by a non-scientist, they cannot be included. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It would help motivate users to check what Nicholas Wade writes if he were someone who has a reputation of understanding how science works. He isn't, and he doesn't. Wrote a stupid and inaccurate book, Betrayers of the Truth, and promoted racial pseudoscience. His arguments are probably worthless, but if you want to check them, do that. I won't. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Exceptional claim is the purely natural origin. Theres no proof for both. But theres massive circumstantial evidence for a lab leak. Thus, lab leak is the Nullhypothesis. Exceptional claim is the natural origin. Anyone who doenst like that has a political agenda. Good luck to Wikipedia improving itself soon. There too much misinformation by handful of editors here blocking progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.164.201.69 (talk) — 31.164.201.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

... You're clearly here from Twitter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 3 May 2021 (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.

The New York Times

This story from The New York Times is very informative:

• How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

WHO not unanimous and other intro issues

There was some discussion of this above but the problem remains. The intro still says "the WHO" finds a lab leak "extremely unlikely." I think the confusion is that the head of WHO-commissioned fact-finding mission (Ben Embarek) said it was extremely unlikely but then the WHO director-general (Ghebreyesus) contradicted this shortly afterwards. Here is a recent article where he says that the possibility of a lab leak specifically needs more investigation. https://news.yahoo.com/whos-leader-said-investigation-whether-203045001.html Since the WHO does not speak with one voice here, this part could be written more carefully, and probably both quotes should be cited. I'm not an established editor so if someone else agrees they should make the change.

While you're at it, you might not want to label all lab scenarios "conspiracy theories." Some of them certainly are conspiracy theories in that they allege a conspiracy to conceal research activities. But some proposed lab scenarios are simply that a lab worker got infected while collecting samples. Biologically this would look just like any other natural bat-human transmission but the role of the lab in bringing animals in contact with humans would still be significant. Lumping this in with, say, bioweapon development theories, seems misleaing. Beautiful tau day (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The WHO report, finally released after all this time, says "extremely unlikely" [20] [21]. So that stays in. Of course we probably should add that politicians were quick to criticise it and call for further investigations, cause that's what politicians do... [22]. The difference between "conspiracy theory", "plausible but rejected theory" and "not disproven" is non-existent as far as WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE are concerned. Sources which are compliant with WP:MEDRS (i.e. the best sources on the subject) still overwhelmingly reject any lab hypothesis. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible . . . . That's a minimum description of where we are. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the WHO has a history of supporting CCP-promoted nonsense. That's a problem. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Deliberate cherrypicking? I linked both FRINGE, which says "A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."; and FASLEBALANCE, which says "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.". And there's also WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE which says "Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included."; and also the clarification that "this also applies to other fringe subjects" (whether they be political speculation or whatever). As I was clearly saying; for our matters of describing the science, the difference between "conspiracy theory", "plausible but rejected theory" and "not disproven" is non-existent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the reference to WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is appropriate here. The very fact the WHO considered (and will continue to investigate until it can be ruled out) is evidence that it is a Alternative theoretical formulation WP:FRINGE theory, not pseudoscience. From FRINGE: They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The idea that a virus might leak from a lab is not pseudoscience.[23] Adoring nanny (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Citing a paper from 2004 is a very transparent way of saying that you couldn't find anything more specific about this outbreak... And as I said, the clarification that "this also applies to other fringe subjects"; whether they be "conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:RandomCanadian, please strike the portion of the above that is about me per WP:NPA. The focus should stay on the article. In regards to the leak, I am confused. Is there something different about 2019 coronaviruses from 2004 coronaviruses, such that one is capable of leaking from a laboratory, while the other is not? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTH and understand why I'm saying that sources about the 2004 outbreak are entirely inappropriate for the 2019 outbreaks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

. . . but the fact that a SARS virus did leak from a lab, causing an outbreak, shows that the idea that coronaviruses can leak from a lab and cause an outbreak is not pseudoscience. We know that they can, because they have. Now if one wants to argue that this coronavirus didn't leak from a lab, that's another matter, but we are no longer talking about pseudoscience. We are talking about an argument that something didn't happen. That's different from an argument that it couldn't. If you want to argue that covid can't leak from a lab, a paper saying as much might support your case. But such a paper may be difficult to find, for obvious reasons. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

But that's a strawman. I'm not arguing that a lab leak is impossible (a ridiculous proposition). I'm saying that a lab leak for COVID-19 is deemed extremely unlikely by MEDRS (if they cover it at all); therefore our coverage of this should not reflect such an hypothesis as a serious alternative: we can mention its existence (due to the notability it has received in the popular press); along with a firm rebuttal to put it in context with the more mainstream science, but that's about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's relevant because you were arguing that the lab leak hypothesis is pseudoscience. If you look at WP:FRINGE/PS, pseudoscience is something that is impossible or obviously bogus. It now appears you have conceded that it is not impossible. As others have pointed out, the WHO report itself does not treat the idea as obviously bogus. Are you dropping the pseudoscience claim? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

When the WHO scientists discuss the idea of a lab leak, they recognizes that it's theoretically possible, but "extremely unlikely." The fact that they might entertain the notion of a possible lab leak doesn't mean that they're engaging in pseudoscience because they're framing that discussion within a proper consideration of likelihood, with the actual mechanisms of transmission recognized, articulated, and weighted accordingly. By contrast, when Mike Pompeo declares that there's evidence the virus came from the WIV, he's actively misleading people, and that's not just pseudoscience, but the worst kind: disinformation. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, most people who are discussing the "lab leak" idea do so without understanding that it's extremely unlikely and without appreciating the actual, far more likely routes of spillover and early transmission. Their discussions may be accurately described as pseudoscience. -Darouet (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. You mention that SARS escaped from a lab. It was only in a lab because it had originally spilled over in the wild, which was why it first caused an epidemic. -Darouet (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's worth remembering, all the hypotheses considered by the WHO include a viral reservoir in bats, later introduced to humans. The lab theory is that rather than a human coming into contact with an animal infected with the SARS-CoV-2, one of the CoVs collected from bats by WIV was SARS-CoV-2 and infected a human there. Plausible hypothesis, but unlikely due to the combination of no direct evidence the lab handled SAR-CoV-2 prior to its transmission among humans (closest bat CoV sample at WIV was only 96.2% similar) and the biosafety procedures of the lab. The combination of the prior leak events and the WHO's own consideration are precisely why it's not pseudoscience, but that continued lack of evidence is why we should continue to refer to the theory as "extremely unlikely" until evidence arises. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd clarify that the reasons you list for why a lab leak is "extremely unlikely" — biosafety and lack of evidence — are the weakest arguments among a raft of much stronger ones. Most importantly, coronaviruses are everywhere in SE Asia, and are spilling over into human populations constantly. It's uncommon for these spillovers to result in epidemics, but seroprevalence shows that the spillovers themselves occur all the time. That's the real reason why the lab leak is extremely unlikely. -Darouet (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, assuming it happens, as for SARS-1, considered unlikely with the protocols in place, it's still easier to trace and contain the result of an error (also because of protocols) than when discovering an ongoing epidemic in the general population; like for SARS-1, it could have nothing to do with the origin. But I think we're already in WP:NOTFORUM territory... —PaleoNeonate – 02:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, that is not the lab origins hypothesis. SARS-CoV-2 is the name given of one of seven human coronaviruses after it jumped from animal/s to human/s. In the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 accidentally passed from some lab animal/s or cell culture/s to human/s, it would not have been published in a database before it's emergence (which would suppose that it would have been sequenced before even existing). The lack of direct evidence that the WIV collected and handled the precursor of SARS-CoV-2 when the WIV is now known to hold previously undisclosed viruses, specifically clade 7896 [24], which Shi has acknowledged the existence of and promised to release [25], is one of the reasons a group of independent scientists calling themselves the Paris Group questioned the credibility of the WHO report [26], which the WHO Mission Chief acknowledged [27], and presumably led to the WHO DG’s statements we are discussing on the COVID-19 pandemic talk page. The WIV’s withholding and obfuscation of crucial data is alarming to scientists who have been following this story. Please read up a little more on the hypothesis you wish to categorise as fringe. CutePeach (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: Do you have a WP:RS (aka not tweets) which support this? Without those, it wouldn't be able to go in the article. The NYT piece you cite above supports the WP:FRINGE view, IMO: A small group of scientists and others who believe the novel coronavirus that spawned the pandemic could have originated from a lab leak or accident... scientists working on coronaviruses continue to unearth and report evidence to support the natural evolution and spillover of the virus from animals. Do note, WP:FRINGE does not mean the theory is wrong or faulty, only that it's (currently) a minority perspective. If there are meaningful, specific critiques (especially those that have a notable individual or group making them) that can be cited as a dissent from the consensus, then we can talk about including them. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:, I drafted a long reply for you here in my Evernote but the third open letter I linked in the other conversation is so incredibly detailed, I would ask you to read it instead of reviewing the sources I was going to provide here. It is the most detailed analysis of all possible occupational and laboratory based routes of infection. I will be able to make some edit proposals here on Tuesday if I find the time. CutePeach (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: Could you directly link the open letter here? I'm unsure which of the various sources you've linked that you're referring to. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the original open letter [28]. Here is coverage in secondary sources [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. CutePeach (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The full text of the WHO Director-General's comments makes it clear that he's referring to continued work to find a definitive source, not discounting any single conclusion of likelihood from the report. The fact all four hypothesis were given likelihoods (rather than reaching a single, definitive conclusion) made this clear even absent these comments. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

References

The director-general explicitly said the lab leak hypothesis has not been properly investigated and should be:

“The team also visited several laboratories in Wuhan and considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident.

“However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions.

“Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy.” Anamelesseditor (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WHO "report was subject to political pressure"

This is currently stated in Wikivoice, when it's actually an allegation made my other governments (and even sourced to them in the article). At a minimum this needs to be properly attributed (it's not), instead of stated in Wikivoice. But I don't think this allegation should even be in the article, since it's strenuously denied by the WHO and the WHO team, and since it muddies the waters about the investigation's findings. -Darouet (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree, and think this is better covered in the International policitians' calls for investigations section that was recently added specifically for this kind of information. On a similar note, the content about the WHA/WHO in the Investigations by governments section seems like it would fit better in the World Health Organization investigations section instead. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I should have written that as "political criticism". I thought the sentence made clear that what is being referred to is not allegations of interference by China but the criticism by the 14 other countries. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Instead of 'pressure' or 'interference', perhaps it would be simpler to refer directly to the root concern: lack of raw data provided by China. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I've added something based on a piece in the Lancet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I’d say remove it but not because its inaccurate but because its a tautology, all WHO reports are subject to political pressure... That is inherent in the very nature of such an international organization. If we have specific allegations of interference we can talk about those specific allegations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that the current text doesn't appear to say anything about "political pressure" (only "politicisation"), or at least not in the relevant section. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: thank you for the correction/update. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: do you feel that the issue still stands based on the current text? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Science claims lableak is not conspiracy theory

In light of what has been published in Science from the Gotha of Virology and Genetic Engineering, I ask you if it is possible to add these elements and if, moreover, it is possible to remove in all related Wikipedia articles the definition of conspiracy theory when discussing a potential laboratory spillover.

"Investigate the origins of COVID-19 | Science" https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1 Francesco espo (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the conversation about this letter to the section immediately above. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

evidence for natural emergence

Are any of these things true that Wade says are summaries of the current state of research?

• Many traces of SARS1 and MERS in the environment were soon found (and their intermediate host species within 4 and 9 months, respectively) but none have been found for SARS2 despite intensive searches during more than a year.
• None of these have been found: neither the original bat population, nor the intermediate species to which SARS2 might have jumped, nor any serological evidence that any Chinese population, including that of Wuhan, had ever been exposed to the virus prior to December 2019.
• Natural emergence of SARS2 remains only a conjecture which, however plausible to begin with, has gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year. --Espoo (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Traces of SARS2, no actual traces found in animal sampled early in the outbreak. Market samples were environmental, mink samples were found way later. There's the frozen food hypothesis, but it is weak.
• Original bat population, not found directly, but genetic evidence very strongly supports it comes from bats. Intermediate species, still unknown. Serological evidence of cryptic infections in humans: evidence was reviewed by the WHO team with no finding of prior outbreaks to December 2019.
• Natural emergence, has strong evidence on its genetic aspects, because virologists have reconstructed theoretical path from backbones to SARS-CoV-2 via recombination, though the evidence still has missing pieces here and there, as opposed as with SARS1 where they found the recombinations neatly. The evidence on the forensic sample aspect of epidemiology, is absent, zero. Taken together, some authorities value the forensic sample side more than the genetics, but others value them the opposite way, so the final balance on this is open for debate. Forich (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

USER:Espoo, you made at least four assertions above, some with multiple parts. They each need to be taken separately:

• and their intermediate host species within 4 and 9 months, respectively. This is an assertion of fact. It should be easy to check one way or the other. That said, to put it into the article, you'd run into a host of Wikipedia policies -- WP:SYNTH, WP:DUE, and so on.
• None of these have been found: Again this is a series of assertions of fact. No bat population with Covid has been found, or if it has, somebody is keeping awfully quiet. There has been found a bat population that suffers from the related virus known as "RaTG13". For the other items in your list, I'm unaware of any report of them having been found. Again, you'd run into WP:SYNTH, WP:DUE, etc. to try to put it into the article. God forbid that our media, or Wikipedia, put two and two together.
• Natural emergence of SARS2 remains only a conjecture That's a fair characterization, though the fact that something is a "conjecture" doesn't tell us whether the evidence for it is weak or strong.
• which, however plausible to begin with, has gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year. That's a statement of opinion. As such, one can't characterize it as true or false. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see how it would be unreasonable to at least mention the fact that notably, unlike similar viruses, no original bat population has been found for COVID. This is not WP:Synthesis because it's a direct quote from the widely cited Adams article, which to my knowledge no refutation has been given... and if a refutation has been given, it would be notable to just discuss both claims so as to ensure balance and educate the reader who is seeking these answers. The lab leak hypothesis at this point is not fringe enough to disregard, balanced article would engage in evidence rather than rely on opinions or conjecture. E.g. it's ridiculous to me the only "supporting" evidence given to the lab leak hypothesis is the random opinion of a CDC director, rather than a cited discussion of the available arguments leading to the current virologist consensus.64.46.20.154 (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• it's ridiculous to me the only "supporting" evidence given to the lab leak hypothesis is the random opinion of a CDC director, rather than You are aware of the fact that pieces of missing evidence for one idea are not evidence for another idea? See argumentum ad ignorantiam. (This is a thing we have to explain to creationists all the time when they point to pieces of evidence for evolution that they could not find.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Letter in Science calls for investigation of theory

Eighteen scientists submitted a letter to Science, a top peer-reviewed journal, calling for further investigation into the theory. ([36]) They write: "...more investigation is still needed to determine the origin of the pandemic. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. ... the two theories [natural emergence and lab leak] were not given balanced consideration [in the WHO report]... Notably, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus commented that the report's consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient and offered to provide additional resources to fully evaluate the possibility. ... As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with the WHO director-general, the United States and 13 other countries, and the European Union that greater clarity about the origins of this pandemic is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data." I'm not getting involved in the Wiki-bureaucracy, but this page, as written, seems woefully out of touch with the current scientific conversation. 67.245.37.188 (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed until now that none of the various open letters (with this being the latest) seem to be referenced on this page. It seems reasonable to have a Scientists' calls for investigations to go alongside International policitians' calls for investigations. Does anyone have a list of the previous open letters, along with any other major group statements that don't fit in the existing categories? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I still don't think we need to list open letters in the article, but this may definitively prove wrong those editors who insist that all reliable sources say that a lab leak is purely a conspiracy theory. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like, if they're going to go anywhere, it's this article. And they're probably notable, even if we pull just a representative handful (preferably one like this one in a reputable journal with signers from exclusively relevant fields, not the self-pub with engineers and physicists) and place them with relatively low prominence in the article (as befits their seeming minority status). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The NY Times has a very good article about this letter [37]. The scientists are notable and with related expertise. Not sure why people keep treating this as a fringe conspiracy theory. There's even a Nobel prize winning virologist who called into question the veracity of the natural origin theory. -Solid Reign (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of confusion between fringe (which this letter is) and conspiracy (which this letter is not), no doubt made worse by some advocates (not these signers) pushing a bioweapon conspiracy theory that's different from the scenario considered by the WHO. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the word fringe, since it's used to describe pseudoscience and to discredit theories. There's publications in many important magazines and newspapers about it. It might not be the most accepted theory, but the natural origin theory is not established science, this is a developing event. Completely agree about how this is exarcerbated by the bioweapon conspiracy theory. -Solid Reign (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think this letter is fringe in the way we use that term here on wikipedia, if it was the letter would not have been published in nature. There is a difference between minority viewpoints and fringe ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Solid Reign and Horse Eye's Back: I refer specifically to the description in WP:FRINGE, which is quite broad. Specifically, I categorize this letter and the theory it asks for more consideration of in the alternative theoretical formulations category described there. Unfortunately, there's not a clean WL shortcut to differentiate alternate theories from pseudocience and questionable science. I started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Add shortcuts to better refer to specific fringe categories to try and resolve this. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Some more context "Top researchers are calling for a real investigation into the origin of covid-19". These are literally giants in the field and probably the top expert on the subject Ralph Baric saying WP:NOLABLEAK is not science. Dinglelingy (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also at the Nytimes [38] the letter is clearly notable and should be covered in this article, alongside the April pro-lab leak open letter, which also received widespread coverage. As these are just letters I don't think the actual prose regarding the origin should be changed though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm significantly less comfortable with that April letter (bare link here). Not only is it self-pub instead of a letter to a respected journal, but some of the co-signers are... weird, with at least four engineers co-signing. I'm not willing to put nearly as much weight on a letter that can't find signers with a relevant background, it comes across as padding the numbers. Not to mention being led by a self-described "Technology Futurist, Geopolitics Expert, Social Entrepreneur, Sci-Fi Novelist, Keynote Speaker", let's stick with the journal published letters. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

We could add something like "The call for further investigation was echoed by a few scientists", citing the Science letter and reactions thereto. Saying "Some scientists disputed the prevailing view via open letters in X and Y" would be inappropriate, because "plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The situation brings up the minor detail of WP:V versus what is actually true. What is Wikipedia about? If we are following WP:V, then WP:NOLABLEAK is correct. If we are looking at evidence, interpreting it as a trained investigator would do, then the LL hypothesis is by far the best fit to the facts. I'm abstaining from offering any opinion about what the text should be, because the truth-versus-verifiability question is so obvious. Do we want to follow our policies, or to give fair treatment to what is almost certainly true about a critical question of our time? That's the question. I can't in good conscience say that we should ignore WP, as this is the wrong forum to make such a decision. But I equally can't in good conscience say here that we should give a misleading impression to our readers. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH says we don't give a fig what is "true", since, especially in today's world of "alternative facts"..., "truth" can be different according to whom you ask. WP:V is long-standing policy, and no, I am entirely unwilling to compromise on that very basic thing, especially not to give "fair treatment" (see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) to a hypothesis so far rejected by relevant sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we want to follow our policies, or to give fair treatment to what is almost certainly true about a critical question of our time? That depends what you mean by 'give fair treatment', and is the thing we're going to be struggling to determine up until a definitive source is found. The most authoritative mainstream sources say the lab leak is "extremely unlikely", making those who believe it is the most likely explanation the WP:FRINGE. Between that and WP:DUE, it seems clear to me that the fringe perspective clearly has sufficient prominent adherents to deserve mention (at the least here, if not on other COVID articles), but it has to be placed in context that it's a minority opinion. Whether right or not, it remains the minority for now (see the WP:FRINGE example of continental drift for a former fringe theory that became mainstream once evidence of the underlying mechanism was discovered) and needs to be presented as such. Of course, the devil is in the details... Bakkster Man (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The NY Times coverage of the letter is top-notch, great balance (we would call it NPOV). We should take that as a model on how to address the Voldemort- like topic of lab leak. Forich (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The NYT coverage is WP:MEDPOP, which is prone to false balance and non-scientific reporting. The letter is essentially the equivalent of an opinion piece, so WP:PRIMARY for the opinion of its authors. It's not sufficient balance to counter the MEDRS which say otherwise, and it does not change the status of the lab leak (which is, depending how kind you want to be, somewhere between an unfounded and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and a possible hypothesis which has been rejected by the vast majority of relevant sources). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the MEDRS-source WHO origin study, the 'collected from bats and inadvertently release' scenario is clearly a 'plausible but unlikely' hypothesis. That's plainly what our strongest source says, and to suggest otherwise merely prolongs and confuses discussion. And unless I've missed something, that's the hypothesis this letter refers to.

It's the intention engineering/release that's the conspiracy theory, and this letter doesn't touch it. Some of the signers have been outspoken in their opposition of those conspiracies. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:TRUTH#Meaning of "truth" in different subject areas: Wikipedia should avoid untruth, even if it appears in otherwise apparently nearly reliable sources. But, it's inconceivable that anyone could notice, or that long-accepted policies could be in direct contradiction to one another . . . Unsigned comment by Adoring nanny

The broader section of WP:TRUTH#Natural_sciences needs to be taken as a whole. In natural sciences, there is a degree of factuality that is hard to dispute, we are dealing with a topic about which there is a degree of dispute. Besides factuality, natural sciences also have conventions or customs, and speculation and opinion, and this letter is indeed an unreviewed opinion, speculating on what amount of weight to give to the truth of one hypothesis or another. Specifically, one arguing against what we can reliably source is the mainstream opinion. We don't yet know what the truth will be, only what most sources claim is most likely. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree on being cautious on citing NYTimes (I never thought I'd say this! they are solid RS for everything else), and I only advocate to follow them closely in this instance: a secondary source that summarizes the Science letter. Here is a particular balanced phrase they used:

[The authors of the letter] said they strove to articulate a wait-and-see viewpoint that they believe is shared by many scientists.

. In citing the lab leak hypothesis with due weight, this phrase looks concise and NPOV to me. I ping @Bakkster Man: to consider a similar approach in the entries he is drafting. Forich (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the sandboxed description of hypotheses is the right place to evaluate the likelihoods of the scenarios, only a bare explanation of the claim itself. I still think this is better put in something like a Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Other scientists' calls for investigations section. Perhaps between The Lancet COVID-19 Commission task force and Chinese government. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

re: the Nicholas Wade discussion earlier

I noticed today that his Medium blog post was picked up & published by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

Would that kind of backing give it any extra credence or legitimacy? 2604:3D09:167F:D900:C0D6:481B:D90A:3D99 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The BAS is "a nonprofit organization concerning science and global security issues resulting from accelerating technological advances that have negative consequences for humanity." No evidence of peer-review by relevant topic experts in virology or related fields. The journal itself, per Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists#Indexing, is not even much cited in its own topic of expertise ("international relations" and "social issues"). That, along with the dubious credentials of its author, strongly precludes using this, since it clearly is not a WP:MEDRS. We can maybe briefly mention it over at the misinformation article if it gets significant coverage in well-known newspapers (for example, see how Bannon et al. are mentioned here), but that's unlikely, and we'd also have to consider whether it really is a significant proponent or just another random unknowledgeable skeptic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

For the MD project it is better to use review articles from MEDLINE to discuss the topic of the origin of COVID 19. This review article from May 2021 titled "On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Did Cell Culture Experiments Lead to Increased Virulence of the Progenitor Virus for Humans?" would be just such a medical review article. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A very good source for the minority opinion. On my reading, this appears to mirror the existing claims being attributed by Wade to David Baltimore, by Robert R. Redfield, by David Relman, and others. Except now we have a MEDRS source describing the rationale one would follow to reach such a conclusion. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Some additional notes on the paper: the author Bernd Kaina is not a virologist, though his background on cancer toxicology and DNA damage appears to have informed much of the paper. There are some obvious errors as a result, most notably he mentions "the lethality for other corona virus infections", but lists non-coronaviruses (Marburg virus and ebolavirus) instead of the four coronaviruses which result in the common cold. I always have trouble finding whether journal papers are peer reviewed or not, and figuring out whether this slipped past the reviewers or it was simply unreviewed may determine whether we consider the paper reliable (more specifically, if we can consider it to fulfill the WP:MEDRS guidelines). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In Vivo is a journal about cancer research (oncology), so, to put it mildly, it isn't exactly the best source for this. It also has many inaccuracies. Some basic claims such as "In contrast to other infectious diseases, COVID-19 affects young people far less than the elderly." (see Influenza#Epidemiology for an obvious counter-example) aren't particularly confidence-inspiring. The paper makes a startling interrogation and error by omission, stating that "But how is the virus supposed to get from the bats that catch their food - insects and spiders - in flight at night into the pangolin, whose natural home is Malaysia," - ignoring entirely that the pangolin is present in mainland China and that it is also a nocturnal animal. The paper then goes on to make a claim that SARS-CoV 2 literally evolved in the lab: "In conclusion, there is a remarkable identity on amino acid and nucleotide level in and around the PCS between SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV. This supports the hypothesis that the PCS/furin cleavage site was gained by a recombination event(s) involving these virus sequences. This notion is important in considering possible zoonotic events, placing laboratory events in the realm of the highly possible." and "It is also conceivable that when cells in culture were coinfected with the predecessor of SARS-CoV-2 and another virus strain that contains the PCS/furin cleavage site, the sequence was transferred to the predecessor virus as a result of a recombination event." Then goes on to state "A hypothesis intensively discussed in scientific and public media is that SARS-CoV-2 is “man-made”, i.e. it represents a laboratory construct or was purposefully manipulated." - that's the nail in the coffin, because the "man-made" hypothesis has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of MEDRS. So basically we have a paper in a non-virology journal arguing for the debunked claim that the virus is man made. Usable to identify it's authors as proponents (if they get really prominent like Redfield et al.), unusable as a scientific source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Another "entertaining" claim in that paper is "d) The presence of a human sequence in the virus genome (40) strongly indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was propagated in human cells before it caused the pandemic." (the source is another paper in In Vivo). Apparently a very controversial claim, [39]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the more I read, the less I'm thinking it's credible even for the very limited case of providing context of the minority opinion. Even if there's some accurate information in there (and I think there probably is), I'm coming to agree with you that the level of WP:REDFLAGs makes the article as a whole too much of a poison pill. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Look and ye shall find. This appears to cover everything, is from a MEDLINE indexed journal ([40]), and comes from a reputable publisher (Elsevier). Ticks all of the marks. Not sure if it would be DUE here, though. Maybe at the virus page. Maybe also to debunk some of the other conspiracy theories at the misinformation page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: On a quick look, it seems like a great explanation of the type of viral research being referred to. I'll have to think if it's SYNTH to use it for some of the things we want to cite, but I'm sure there's something good to be mined from it. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Another great science review article from February 2021 which covers in-depth the topic of the possible origins of SARS2 is the review "Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review". Also to get an idea of how the origin topic is now being covered in the literature you can read a review such as "A Perspective on COVID-19 Management" from April 2021 where it briefly discusses the origin of SARS2 and states:

"Both the “natural zoonotic transfer” or “lab escape” theories might partially explain the origin of the polybase cleavage site of furin, which is the area of the S glycoprotein that makes it susceptible to cleavage by the host enzyme furin and which greatly promotes the spread of the virus in the body."

It is important to realize that Wikipedia does not lead the news but follows the news; therefore, in the sciences Wikipedia is generally at least a year behind what is going on, although it is up-to-date in the medical field because of MEDRS reliability requirements. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The first paper has already been mentioned before. It's in "Environmental Chemistry Letters", clearly not a medical journal, and even the French language version which was in a proper journal doesn't support the lab leak as a mainstream idea. (The English has "The hypothesis promoted by most specialists is that the virus has a zoonotic origin." - the other opinion is cited to a paper by Sirotkin (a non-virologist, active on twitter with the usual suspects [Deigin, DRASTIC, you know them], publishing in the same journal). The second paper is published by MDPI, a poor, potentially predatory publisher. This seems to be the case since the reviewers, if any, missed that the sources used to support "The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial" are two papers, one dating from 2015 and the other from 2014. The journal is not MEDLINE indexed either (Pubmed does not include the paper if I apply the MEDLINE filter). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, power~enwiki, Jtbobwaysf This is a mischaracterization of the first MEDRS "Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review". Despite a layman's interpretation of the title "Environmental Chemistry Letters", the journal "covers the interfaces of geology, chemistry, physics and biology. Articles published here are of high importance to the study of natural and engineered environments." [41] Regardless, the original French language version in the journal "médecine/sciences" [42] meets MEDRS and is MEDLINE indexed and clearly summarizes, "On the basis of currently available data, it is impossible to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a natural zoonotic emergence or an accidental escape from experimental strains."[43] Dinglelingy (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This and the other sources pretty much throws this Scientific Consensus POV under the bus (in fact it has been under the bus for some time other than a few very noisy editors on this talk page). Change is slow with this level of TE we have here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't change anything, at all. The letter is just an example of Science by press conference (thanks to Alexbrn for pointing that out). Unless the authors publish a peer-reviewed review article in a reputable journal which makes significant claims in the matter, their opinion remains unsubstantiated by MEDRS, and even if they do, then that would still be one contrarian paper among so many others (though at the point, if it ever happens mention might be less UNDUE than now). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The French-language abstract has no mention of that:

Full abstract in French

Le SARS-CoV-2 est un nouveau coronavirus (CoV) humain. Il a émergé en Chine fin 2019 et est responsable de la pandémie mondiale de Covid-19 qui a causé plus de 540 000 décès en six mois. La compréhension de l’origine de ce virus est une question importante et il est nécessaire de déterminer les mécanismes de sa dissémination afin de pouvoir se prémunir de nouvelles épidémies. En nous fondant sur des inférences phylogénétiques, l’analyse des séquences et les relations structure-fonction des protéines de coronavirus, éclairées par les connaissances actuellement disponibles, nous discutons les différents scénarios évoqués pour rendre compte de l’origine - naturelle ou synthétique - du virus. (Sallard, Erwan; Halloy, José; Casane, Didier; Helden, Jacques van; Decroly, Étienne (1 August 2020). "Retrouver les origines du SARS-CoV-2 dans les phylogénies de coronavirus". médecine/sciences (in French). 36 (8–9): 783–796. doi:10.1051/medsci/2020123. ISSN 0767-0974.)

The authors then go on to describe the context of some claims and note how such a polemic is unhelpful to actual science:

2 paragraphs regarding the more outlandish proposition by Montagnier and then the lab leak

Ce « fait troublant » aurait donc dû rester anecdotique. Néanmoins, en avril 2020, le Professeur Luc Montagnier, Prix Nobel de physiologie ou médecine pour sa contribution à la découverte du VIH, défraie la chronique en proclamant que ces insertions ne résulteraient pas d’une recombinaison naturelle ou d’un accident, mais d’un vrai travail de génétique, effectué intentionnellement, vraisemblablement dans le cadre de recherches visant à développer des vaccins contre le VIH. Ces affirmations ont été immédiatement contestées par un grand nombre de scientifiques, qui ont rétorqué que les séquences similaires entre VIH et SARS-CoV-2 étaient tellement courtes (une trentaine de nucléotides sur un génome qui en compte 30 000) que leur ressemblance était vraisemblablement fortuite. La controverse s’est amplifiée, dans un contexte politique tendu où le président des États-Unis accusait la République populaire de Chine d’avoir laissé échapper le virus manipulé d’un laboratoire P4 à Wuhan… Ce type de polémique ne favorise pas une analyse sereine des faits. De façon paradoxale, à ce jour, aucune analyse approfondie n’a été publiée concernant l’origine de ces insertions. Des approches de bioinformatique et de phylogénie moléculaire sont pourtant susceptibles de nous apporter un éclairage intéressant, comme nous le montrons ci-dessous.

They conclude by saying that on the basis of existing evidence (at the time), it was difficult making a definitive statement on the subject, but they note that the route to prove the zoonotic origin is much more likely:

2 more paragraphs

L’origine animale du virus reste problématique. Une piste serait d’intensifier la collecte d’échantillons chez des espèces sauvages ou domestiques. L’étrange puzzle recombinatoire qu’est le génome de SARS-CoV-2 reste une énigme… Il nous faudra sans doute le résoudre pour comprendre ses origines. Même les souches les plus proches de SARS-CoV-2 (RATG13, RmYN02 pour la chauve-souris et MP789 pour le pangolin) présentent un taux de différences avec le génome de SARS-CoV-2 beaucoup plus élevé que ce qu’on attendrait chez un virus qui aurait été à l’origine de la dissémination humaine. La découverte de virus animaux présentant une très forte similarité avec SARS-CoV-2 fournirait un élément décisif pour valider son origine naturelle. [...] Sur base des données actuelles (voir Tableau I), il est actuellement difficile de statuer à propos de l’émergence du SARS-CoV-2 et de déterminer s’il est le fruit d’une transmission zoonotique naturelle ou d’une fuite accidentelle à partir de souches expérimentales. Quelle que soit son origine, l’étude des mécanismes d’évolution et des processus moléculaires impliqués dans l’émergence de ce virus pandémique est et restera essentielle afin d’élaborer des stratégies préventives, thérapeutiques et l’adaptation des souches vaccinales.

There's a full translation (done by the authors?) submitted here, which entirely avoids the questions of whether the other journal is a MEDRS ("biology" and "chemistry" are too vague concepts, and the fact it published the junk papers by Sirotkin et al. isn't helpful). Also August 2020 is a fair bit ago: it was before the WHO report, ... One source wouldn't be enough to override the others ones, which argue overwhelmingly against, nor to change the status of the lab leak to something more than a "possible but unaccepted theory". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's credible/reliable for certain types of background information, but not for WP:MEDRS-related claims. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

And here is another science review from April 2021 which discusses the current state of affairs of scientific knowledge concerning the virus' origin. The relevant quote:[44]

"From scientific point of view, before we would have obtained solid and convincing evidence to prove its true origin, we could not rule out the following possibilities (1) naturally occurring, (2) unintentionally made and leaked out of the lab, and (3) a combination/extension of (1) and (2), including under-appreciated or unassessed interactions between the man-made and the natural world. Ms. Angela L. Rasmussen recently published a short comment titled “On the origins of SARS-CoV-2” to appeal to the stakeholders in public health—scientists, clinicians and, most importantly, members of the public to understand or study the origins of SARS-CoV-2 using an evidence-driven approach (Rasmussen, 2021). Unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence to prove that it came from natural evolution, neither is there sufficient evidence to prove that it was intentionally made and leaked out of a laboratory. SARS-COV-2 is different enough from the closest published natural strain that it is very unlikely to have been engineered from that strain, but it cannot exclude the possibility that the immediate precursor is an unpublished and unacknowledged natural strain that was in the possession of a laboratory, and we cannot rule out the possibility that some strains could naturally evolved further in an environment of artificially imposed evolutionary pressure or under some unknown extreme natural evolutionary conditions. Compelling evidence of natural origin would be the discovery in nature of the immediate precursors, which has not been done."

"There is an extensive history of pathogen emergence by natural routes: most novel viral pathogens that have caused epidemics or pandemics in humans have emerged naturally from wildlife reservoirs. Therefore, prevailing view among many scientists is that this virus could found its way into the human host through a series of unpleasant and unexpected encounters with animals (Rasmussen, 2021) although the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still hotly debated and unresolved."

This is a science review addressing biotechnology and biosafety. It is titled "Advances in Synthetic Biology and Biosafety Governance". For people with MDs this review will seem off point since it is not in MEDLINE, but this review by Chinese scientists from Beijing is completely on point. Biotechnology, biosafety, and synthetic biology are all relevant to the unknown origin of this virus. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Frontiers is a dubious publisher. See User:JzG/Predatory/F - "Likely or proven predatory open access Promotion of fringe theories"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Worth considerng?

Added the following to the main article but was reverted - worth considering? => "On 14 May 2021, scientists reported that "Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable.", and urge for an evidence-based clarification of the origin of the COVID-19 virus." - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

@Drbogdan: It was reverted because there's an entire section about this right above which you somehow managed to miss, including many concerns about FALSEBALANCE and how best to do it :) I've put in a better wording which seems more thorough than just focusing on the lab leak... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: - Thanks for your comments, for noting the discussion above and for adding better wording - it's all appreciated - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - News (05/19/2021) from "Politico" also seems relevant to the article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Not too helpful. We can't cite it in the article (WP:MEDPOP), and most of what's being said just echoes what we already have (unsurprising the three 'likely' voices are Chan, Relman, and Ebright). We have better sources for everything said here. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

References

CDC Director testifies: "Certainly a lab-based origin is one possibility."

Once the head of the CDC testifies under oath that there's a real chance the virus escaped from a lab—"Certainly a lab-based origin is one possibility"—it strikes me the time has come to stop calling it a "conspiracy theory" and quit claiming that there's a "scientific consensus" that it was zoonotic in origin. No science expert here—just using common sense. Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The actual CSPAN transcript shows her replies: "THIS HAS BEEN STUDIED BY THE W.H.O." and "I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE SEEN ENOUGH INDIVIDUAL DATA FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THAT." So thanks for pointing us to the director of a major public health body putting their confidence in the WHO's origin study, this is why we consider it to be the mainstream consensus.

When pressed by Senator Kennedy (who was obviously fishing for the lab answer), she gave a broad possibility, which basically mirrored what the WHO and most others are saying: inadvertent release from a lab is a possibility (with a variety of assessments of likelihood), deliberate bio-engineering of the virus (the only thing we specifically refer to on this page as a conspiracy theory) has been ruled out and director Walensky didn't address this possibility. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: (and others) re quote: "deliberate bio-engineering of the virus (the only thing we specifically refer to on this page as a conspiracy theory) has been ruled out"
Seems related => Seems Chinese virologists were studying how a bat virus could enter human cells by successfully creating (bio-engineering?) bat virus mutations that apparently were capable of infecting human cells - as early as 2015? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The WHO said "We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome", citing "While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding7,11. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation." [45] Bakkster Man (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there seems to be a pretty significant difference when sources talk about "deliberate bioengineering" and "serial passage". The plausible side of the "inadvertent leak" hypothesis is serial passage while growing the virus in culture. The deliberate bioengineering that's dismissed by reliable sources is generally the "intentional creation of a bioweapon" conspiracy. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Wuhan lab leak section

I don't think this section belongs in the article. Right now, the article describes:

1. investigations and findings by scientists,
2. investigations and findings by the WHO,
3. investigations or calls for investigations by governments / other bodies, and
4. the Wuhan lab leak idea.

I moved the Wuhan lab section to the end of the article because one specific type of pseudoscience doesn't belong in the middle of the article. But I have to recognize that no matter where I put the section, it sticks out as incongruous. We should remove it. -Darouet (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I added it because there have been serious investigations into a lab leak origin of COVID-19. When the WHO and the US intelligence community are doing years of research into the idea, it is a topic that must be discussed. Coverage of pure speculation should remain in the COVID-19 misinformation, I agree. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

User:力, the problem is that the addition privileges an idea that most biological scientists consider pseudoscience above others. Within the universe of highly likely scenarios describing the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, there are dozens of scenarios that could get their own specific section, but we haven't produced those. Similarly, among the universe of "extremely unlikely" scenarios, there are others beyond "lab leak" that could get their own section. I do understand that in the popular media, lab leak is discussed a lot, but among most scientists, it's considered a FRINGE idea. -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The US government is investigating it and has said that it is a possibility, David Baltimore, a virologist and Nobel Laureaute recently said that there are some features in the virus that challenge the idea of a natural origin for the virus, the market origin theory has been shown to be untrue, many virologists have said that the theory is plausible. Calling it pseudoscience is strange when even the WHO has launched (albeit very flawed) inquiries into it. -Solid Reign (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

{{citation needed}}. What exactly is the psuedoscience here? What are these "dozens" of scenarios? Apart from "came from a bat, probably through some other species", can you provide 2 other scenarios? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As in, something close to the original strain evolved in one of many SE Asian bat subpopulations, did or didn't passage through domesticated or semi-domesticated animals of many possible varieties, crossed over into humans in one of innumerable villages, the first person (or people) exposed were farmers/hunters/traders/miners/etc, the route of the virus to a larger city center occurred through trade/work/school, a given number of clusters formed before one was detected at the market in Wuhan... multiplying those possibilities together and you get a sense of the origin mechanisms and scenarios that scientists consider likely. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should be titled "Investigations into potential Wuhan lab leak"? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever we do, it's a complete mess in the current state. It's mostly repeating information which was presented above (in multiple paragraphs). It's calling it a conspiracy theory, but only explicitly discusses the scientific hypothesis the WHO evaluated, and not the conspiracies of a bioweapon. I'm going to be bold and nuke it (WP:BRD), if there's information that isn't duplicated in the other sections of the articles, feel free to add it back there. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's a mess, but we absolutely must describe what the "lab leak theory" is at some point in the article, we cannot just say it is false/misinformation. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We do discuss it, and not as misinformation. So propose or add text in one (or more) of the current sections it's already discussed: the lede, Reservoir and zoonotic origin, World Health Organization investigations, The Lancet COVID-19 Commission task force, and/or Investigations by governments. The WHO section seems like a good starting point. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that other users removed the majority of your originally proposed text for various reasons, which left the section in the state that it was unnecessary. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Looking for comment on your revert. I envisioned my removal as the Revert of WP:BRD with @力: having made the bold edit. I'd rather see us move any missing info (that isn't conspiracy, which belongs elsewhere) into the above sections, instead of just restoring the section which has major problems (see above). Bakkster Man (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My opinions - this article is about the investigations, not the conspiracies - the investigations have certainly happened and are continuing, and thus it shouldn't be labeled a "conspiracy theory" in the heading. It should be labeled a "hypothesis" because it is a validly crafted hypothesis - even if exceedingly unlikely. This article should cover the different investigations that have been done as well as the results they've had - increasing level of unlikelihood. This article should not repeat what's in COVID-19 misinformation about those who are "hyperbolizing" the hypothesis into more than it is. I do not think it is a good idea to separate by WHO/not-WHO investigations - a chronological timeline is likely to be better. I think Power's suggestion for titles/information are all appropriate and should be considered. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We should mention the relationship between misinformation and investigation where RS does. The wholesale removal of the section with a false edit summary was not helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

While consensus may differ, I disagree that a full revert is necessarily unhelpful. Often reworking from the start is more effective than trying to make small revisions on something that needs a lot of work. I'd also point out that while my edit comment may have been in error stating it was entirely duplicate info, I did point editors to this talk section where I was able to explain in greater detail. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My position is that some article, somewhere on the project, needs a stand-alone section on legitimate scientific inquiries into the hypothesis that COVID originated from a lab leak. There is certainly information to add; I don't see any discussion of the claims that the initial low mutation rate suggests a lab origin (I would want better sourcing than [46] for an article, but it's good enough for a talk page). Have other scientists dismissed that argument for legitimate reasons? Then we should say so. At COVID-19 misinformation, editors have suggested that legitimate scientific inquiries should be discussed elsewhere. I have no strong preference for it being in this article as opposed to some other one (or a stand-alone article). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NOPAGE certain topics, even if notable, are better encompassed in articles of wider scope. Per WP:GEVAL we wouldn't really want to be giving a fringe notion like the "lab leak" a space where it was presented without proper rational context describing how fringe it is, according to decent RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed use case for how a wikilink to a specific section on the topic would be used? That would help me to understand why you feel it was important to include under a standalone heading. I'd suggest that if we did this, a good path to go down would be to include all four WHO-referenced hypotheses (direct zoonosis, zoonosis via intermediary, cold/food chain, and lab leak) in order of evaluated likelihood, rather than only one section for this explanation. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Dunno. If we want a whole section about the narrative that the virus came from Fort Detrick, or the WIV, or wherever (i.e. the "lab leak hypothesis"), we'd need decent sources on that, and to give a mainstream context that this is likely nonsense, per WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I obviously don't want the conspiracies, those belong on the Misinformation article. I think the root information that would be valuable is to explain what is meant by scientists when they evaluate the possibility of a lab leak (ie. gathered from bats, possible gain of function for study, accidental exposure/release). This is probably the article to do that in a DUE manner, as well as for the other potential scenarios (the 'cold/food chain' is unintuitive to the average reader, for instance).

Sounds WP:EXCEPTIONAL. You sources would be ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm referring to something like what is found in the Joint WHO-China report section, under the Explanation of Hypothesis section for each hypothesis.

Introduction through the cold/food chain hypothesis: Food-chain transmission can reflect direct zoonotic transmission, or spillover through an intermediate host. Meanwhile cold chain products may be a vehicle of transmission between humans. This would also refer to food-contamination events in addition to introductions. The focus of this paragraph is on cold/food chain products and their containers as potential route of introduction of SARS-CoV-2. Here, it is important to distinguish between contamination of cold chain products leading to secondary outbreaks in 2020 and the potential for cold chain acting as the entry pathway for the origin of the pandemic in 2019.

Introduction through a laboratory incident hypothesis: SARS-CoV-2 is introduced through a laboratory incident, reflecting an accidental infection of staff from laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses. We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome (3).

Obviously all needs to be run through DUE and such, but I'm only recommending a summary description of how our cited sources are characterizing the scenarios we're discussing. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Can't see there's anything substantive there that's not covered. You are of course equally keen for the frozen food narrative - to which the WHO commits more words - to be expanded upon? Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to be implying I'm "keen" for any of the hypotheses. I referenced these two because, of the WHO-evaluated hypotheses, they're the least intuitive and thus an explanation on the page would most improve comprehension. I think we both agree that the WHO-evaluated hypothesis is the only one to consider on this page (not the conspiracies), and that the hypothesis is extremely unlikely. It makes sense to me to explain the distinction between the theories considered "unlikely but plausible subjects of legitimate scientific consideration" and "bogus politically motivated conspiracies". Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I fully support Bakkster Man's proposal here. I would like to know more myself about the "frozen food" theory, and having two "other theories considered but rejected" should minimize the implication that we are unduly promoting the lab leak theory. The argument that there may be a shortage of space is ridiculous; you have seen how many articles we have on cricketers, right? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't read my above comments as complete agreement with subsections. My actual preference is for any necessary explanation of the referenced hypotheses to happen without a subsection. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The only part of a "frozen food" section I felt qualified to write was the header, so I did that. I have not read the 2021 WHO report yet. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to understand your reason for subsections first, as I asked above, before I add content to a subsection I don't think should exist. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey User:力, I'm sympathetic to the idea of creating a separate article, but in all likelihood, it will become a dumping ground for all the popular press articles that scientists here at Wikipedia are currently keeping out of articles on COVID-19. There's been discussion on twitter about finding a space on Wikipedia to let this happen - and originally, this article was written as just such a space. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm reverting User:RandomCanadian here in a minute because this shouldn't be controversial. This is an article about investigations. Are people seriously denying that the lab leak has been investigated and saying that it's undue to discuss those investigations here? Obviously the discussion of those investigations shouldn't imply that they were ever considered likely, but this article does need to discuss them and the work power~enwiki is doing is a clear improvement. This is due for this article - obviously investigations, especially those which get a lot of popular news, are due for an article about investigations. And yes, each independent "course of investigation" should be given its own section - there is more than enough reliably sourced information out there about the investigation into the lab leak itself to craft a section describing it. FRINGE/pseudoscience (which don't apply to the investigations, but anyway) don't tell us "never mention them" - they say to not give them credibility - which discussing the investigations doesn't do. In fact, a clear section about the investigations and how they reached the "extremely unlikely" outcomes will actually help us comply with those policies by explaining the reasoning behind and the investigations that have been done. I recommend people stop trying to halt changes and let power, who from what I can see is an uninvolved party, work on this for a while and discuss with them here before just reverting them outright with no comment on the talk page to explain why. Pinging power so they know I commented here. Nothing power edited gives any more credence to the theory than this article did before, and their edits expanded the encyclopedic information about the investigations - and were perfectly fine. Any specific problems with specific edits should be discussed with power here before unilaterally reverting and not saying anything. There's enough disruption and lack of collegiality from new/POV-pushing editors here - let's please not increase the disruption/"fighting" by reverting things before discussion when they aren't egregiously problematic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The information as reported by WP:RS should be incorporated into the article, but the appropriate place to do that is within existing sections not as a massive stand-alone section which is way beyond WP:DUEWEIGHT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted again per WP:BRD - you attempted an edit, it's been reverted, now is the time to discuss. I agree with Horse Eye that a separate section for everyone's favourite (the irony must be obvious, but in any case, since this is the internet) fringe theory would be UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about the theory - so good try. This is about the investigations of that theory - investigations are notable, are due, and are not "fringe" as they are simply historical events. Maybe you should read power's edit again - they added nothing about the "theory" but added encyclopedic information about the investigations. Sections help readability - it is much better to have a section with 4-5 paragraphs describing these investigations (which can easily be written and due given how many investigations both WHO and otherwise there have been) than it is to attempt to shove it into another section that already has 4+ paragraphs. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE also comes into play as to "how much weight do we need to give to topics closely related to a fringe hypothesis"? We don't need to go into exruciating details about the investigations into the fringe theory. If the change had only been adding a section header, that wouldn't have been problematic. If you want to propose a section on the topic, feel free to do so and add one here on the talk page up for discussion and wait until there is some form of consensus for it before adding it to the article - that is what WP:BRD means. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Until the intermediary host or original bat population is found, it's completely asinine to label the lab theory a fringe hypothesis. The circumstantial evidence is pretty staggering. --Edit0r6781 (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there's no consensus that it's "fringe" - just that it's not the scientific consensus as to the "most likely" at this time. Furthermore, even if there were, FRINGE applies specifically to the theories/hypothesis - you'll note we have an entire article on vaccines and autism for example, even though that's a fringe theory. That article discusses the investigations, and the evidence, and also provides a "here's what they say and why it's wrong" overview. So no, FRINGE does not apply to information about a fringe theory, it applies to claiming the theory itself is valid. There's certainly many FRINGE theories that have gotten so much mainstream attention - not necessarily belief/credibility, but attention - to merit full articles, or at a minimum sections in another article. So yes, I'll propose that below because your reading of FRINGE and DUE seems to be very out of touch with what its goal actually is - which isn't to prevent discussion of a fringe theory at all, it's to prevent it from being placed/discussed in a way that gives it credibility. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

While I disagree a bit on the minutiae about FRINGE (I'd say between WHO and others conclusions on the likelihood makes the opinion that the lab origin was 'more likely than not' is the minority), I agree completely that FRINGE is about portrayal relative to the mainstream, not complete abolition. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific subsection

This shouldn't be necessary, but here: A specific subsection (likely under the WHO investigations heading or the "further investigations" heading) should be created to discuss the plethora of investigations conducted into the "lab leak" and how they concluded that it is "extremely unlikely". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per comments above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  What I was suggesting was a precise text that we can review and identify flaws in... Something like what's been ongoing at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic recently, but without any of the SPAs obviously. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  If text isn't horribly problematic, there shouldn't be any mandate to get consensus on the talk page for the exact text first. There's a reason WP:SOFIXIT redirects to the "be bold" policy. If you find a problem in something, but it's not overall problematic, it's better to work on improving it further than simply revert - or if you're unwilling or unable to do so, to leave it and tag problems for others to fix. Alternatively, you could make a post on the talkpage identifying problems with a recent edit without reverting. There's no mandate in BRD that the R has to happen - if someone makes a bold change that isn't an immense problem, you can always choose to leave it and voice concerns on the talk page anyway. Power is a very experienced editor, and I'm sure they'd respond to your concerns here regardless of you reverting or not. Since you said that a section on the topic should be proposed, I did so - without specific text because there's no rush on deciding on specific text and Wikipedia is a work in progress that will continue to be improved regardless of the initial text in a created section. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is an article about COVID, so I prefer we be extra cautious especially if it involves controversial information. The empty section on "food chain" transmission is not necessary. The whole section you added seems like a duplicate of the bullet points above (in addition to needing some copy-editing...). Details about the scientific consensus should go to the main COVID-19 pandemic article (where they already mostly are); details about investigations discrediting the lab leak can go in the section to that effect on the misinformation article. We should be wary of the scope of this article and avoid unnecessary duplication - this is about investigations into the origins of the virus, not everything related thereto. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  What I don't want us to do is get involved in what's gone on at Donald Trump where most of the lead and quite a few portions of the body are virtually unedited because every time someone wants to make a change a whole RfC is needed on a specific text. Especially with experienced editors such as power~enwiki, we shouldn't need to do that and we should try not to. The investigations are not covered in the misinformation article - there have been many investigations that aren't misinformation - such as the WHO conclusion of "extremely unlikely" - that's not misinformation and is out of scope for that article. It should be covered here - because as you say, this is about investigations into the origins of the virus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  The WHO investigation is already covered here. The content you wanted to add is duplicative and doesn't add anything new or useful here. If you wish to cover other scientific investigations, feel free to do so, but that (in addition to additional content) might need a different header? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  I tend to agree, especially since there have been two separate WP:BRDs just today. I've seen sandboxes and such work well here, and after BRD has been contentious (like this) seems like the time to try that. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose since I haven't yet seen a reason (let alone good) why we need a separate sub-heading for any explanations of the investigated theories. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• There's a chicken-and-egg problem here; a !vote on a section would be clearer if that section were fully written, but it is impossible to write the section if people keep reverting it out of the article entirely. Additionally, I will only have minimal time for Wikipedia over the next few days, and cannot do more to write the section myself. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is what a sandbox is for, generally. See WP:ABOUTSAND. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support, inclusion as a subsection or even section is DUE by amount of traction the hypothesis has generated. Admittedly, inclusion requires skillful editing to do proper attributions and avoid politicization, Bakkster and power may be the best editors to initiate such a draft. Forich (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab at better describing the four hypotheses evaluated by the WHO report in paragraph form (which I think is needed), and then we can take a look and decide if it improves the article, and if so whether there should be sub-sections per hypothesis. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support due to the large amount of quality sourcing that is available.[47][48] Adoring nanny (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  Neither NPR or NYT are MEDRS, so I don't see how these two articles are "quality sourcing" for purposes here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose without an actual proposal As I was saying above, you should make a draft of the proposed section (either using {{ctop}} and {{cbot}}, as for ex. at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, or using a dedicated sandbox page in your userspace). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The lab leak hypothesis has been discussed in high-quality sources, along with credible concerns about the WHO investigation, conflict of interests, etc.[49] Stonkaments (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. As per Stonkaments well articulated points. CutePeach (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sandboxed scenario descriptions

I've sandboxed a description of the four WHO-assessed scenarios at the following location: User:Bakkster Man/Origin Sandbox.

I'm pretty happy with how it looks, with similar character counts for the four scenarios and the commonly agreed to information. Anyone is welcome to continue to refine the wording (I'm sure it needs it).

Almost everything is sourced from the WHO joint report at the moment (if anyone can provide additional citations, it would be much appreciated) with one additional reference to the In Vivo paper, which I'd prefer to replace if possible if someone has a cleaner source. I went with bolding for the scenario names used by the WHO, which could be easily be converted to sub-headings if there's consensus, but I think it's more readable without. I'm also open to ideas where to put such a section. Two options I see would be in the Scientific consensus on origins header (editing the first paragraph of the sandbox to mesh) or in/before/after the World Health Organization investigations (again, with editing to avoid duplicate info). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice draft, read through it all and will comment on various points. The first is that the intro paragraph "several decades" of genetic distance seems to broad, it could mean anything from 2 to 10 decades. I believe we can use the point estimate (what was it, 25?) with a parenthesis indicating the confidence interval. Or we can include something like "approximately xx years". Forich (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a location that a more specific source would be of benefit, the WHO report kept this broad with "several decades of evolutionary space". I'd be in favor of a more refined estimate if we can provide a solid MEDRS secondary source. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice draft! Wizzy…☎ 16:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: did post your comments on various points? I also have a few comments to improve this excellent draft. CutePeach (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Forich and CutePeach:Don't just comment, be WP:BOLD and edit the sandbox directly. That's what it's there for. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Its done, thanks for the heads up. Forich (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Added to the main page. Thanks especially to Forich for his help, especially digging up some solid supporting sources beyond the WHO report. Please feel free to edit as needed, as always. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of seroprevalence studies

There have been at least two studies that have shown elevated seroprevalence of antibodies for the COVID-19 virus outside of China in late 2019. I was wondering if there is any justification for the inclusion of these studies as they suggest earlier emergence/potential emergence outside of China.

Apolone, G., Montomoli, E., Manenti, A., Boeri, M., Sabia, F., Hyseni, I., ... & Pastorino, U. (2020). Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy. Tumori Journal, 0300891620974755. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0300891620974755

Basavaraju, S. V., Patton, M. E., Grimm, K., Rasheed, M. A. U., Lester, S., Mills, L., ... & Stramer, S. L. (2020). Serologic testing of US blood donations to identify severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–reactive antibodies: December 2019–January 2020. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1785/6012472 Dhawk790 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dhawk790, please see WP:MEDRS for why we don't take the results of single studies and include them in articles - not just limited to COVID-19 but across the medical field. If you can find a systematic review that discusses these studies and provides conclusions, then it can be considered - but until then, this would be undue weight to include at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The first study had some methodological issues (which is why we usually wait for secondary studies). The WHO was investigating it further to either confirm or dispute the results, but I haven't seen anything on the subject. The second study is probably accurate, but the same issues of confirmation would apply. Even then, it's probably more suited to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States than this article. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I think that is a good policy. There is another similar study from France (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00716-2?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst&ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst_20210207&error=cookies_not_supported&error=cookies_not_supported&code=c90f16eb-0525-4e2e-8741-515ef0dddea6&code=2c4ebc11-3dd8-4b83-ba64-054e72c6714a) so maybe there will start being some deeper digging, like review.

Am I understanding the policy right that it would be potentially acceptable to include these studies with the articles about the pandemic in those countries. Thanks again. Dhawk790 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Potentially yes, but likely not acceptable. On Wikipedia, we tend to do a "follow, not lead" approach to things - and even more so in medical topic areas. Unless a study is "groundbreaking" or extremely huge/well-ran, we tend not to include single studies anywhere within the medical topics on Wikipedia - we wait for reviews, systematic reviews, Cochrane analyses, etc. - secondary sources that examine a large number of sources and come to conclusions based on more than just one study. Yes, this means that we can't always be on the "breaking edge" of things on Wikipedia - but it also means that we don't include potentially harmful/incorrect medical information before it's been fully vetted multiple times and considered to be the scientific consensus. The best thing to do would be to start talk page discussions on the articles for the pandemic in those countries if you really think these studies meet the strict criteria in WP:MEDRS for citing a primary source - and then let people discuss there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will start a discussion in the relevant pages. Dhawk790 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There's two things going on here. One is that we usually wait for secondary sources. That means, someone taking multiple primary studies like these and summing up the current state of understanding, or a 'meta analysis' which takes multiple primary studies and tries to distill an overall result from them. So what we're waiting on is something like the WHO or other researchers evaluating this and other studies about antibody prevalence on the strength of the data and coming to a more robust conclusion.

If that happens, depending on the conclusion, it might make more sense for the national articles. This article is about the investigations on exactly when and where the virus jumped to humans and spread. Well before it crossed international borders. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. Finding the human jump point may be complicated by potentially earlier transmission, but it still leaves that question opened. Regardless, need more studies/secondary sources for this article. Dhawk790 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Primary resources and unreliable for biomedical content. The first source is doubly unreliable given this. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)