Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)

Lab leak theory sources

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

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

[]  · Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
Chen, Xin; Kalyar, Fatema; Chughtai, Abrar Ahmad; MacIntyre, Chandini Raina (2024-03-15). "Use of a risk assessment tool to determine the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)". Risk Analysis. doi:10.1111/risa.14291. Redfield, Robert (2023-03-08). "COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak". House Oversight Comittee. House Oversight Comitee. Retrieved 16 January 2023. Berche, Patrick (2023-06-02). "Gain-of-function and origin of Covid19". Presse Medicale. 52 (1): 104167. doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2023.104167. ISSN 2213-0276. PMC 10234839. PMID 37269978. Domingo, Jose L. (2022-12-01). "An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 215: 114131. Bibcode:2022ER....215k4131D. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.114131. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 9420317. PMID 36037920. Courtier-Orgogozo, Virginie; de Ribera, Francisco A. (2022-11-01). "SARS-CoV-2 infection at the Huanan seafood market". Environmental Research. 214: 113702. Bibcode:2022ER....214k3702C. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113702. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 9220909. PMID 35752330. Keusch, Gerald T.; Amuasi, John H.; Anderson, Danielle E.; Daszak, Peter; Eckerle, Isabella; Field, Hume; Koopmans, Marion; Lam, Sai Kit; Das Neves, Carlos G.; Peiris, Malik; Perlman, Stanley; Wacharapluesadee, Supaporn; Yadana, Su; Saif, Linda (2022-10-18). "Pandemic origins and a One Health approach to preparedness and prevention: Solutions based on SARS-CoV-2 and other RNA viruses". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (42): e2202871119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11902871K. doi:10.1073/pnas.2202871119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9586299. PMID 36215506. Sachs, Jeffrey D.; Karim, Salim S. Abdool; Aknin, Lara; Allen, Joseph; Brosbøl, Kirsten; Colombo, Francesca; Barron, Gabriela Cuevas; Espinosa, María Fernanda; Gaspar, Vitor; Gaviria, Alejandro; Haines, Andy; Hotez, Peter J.; Koundouri, Phoebe; Bascuñán, Felipe Larraín; Lee, Jong-Koo (2022-10-08). "The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic". The Lancet. 400 (10359): 1224–1280. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01585-9. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 36115368. Thakur, Nagendra; Das, Sayak; Kumar, Swatantra; Maurya, Vimal K.; Dhama, Kuldeep; Paweska, Janusz T.; Abdel‐Moneim, Ahmed S.; Jain, Amita; Tripathi, Anil K.; Puri, Bipin; Saxena, Shailendra K. (2022-09-08). "Tracing the origin of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2): A systematic review and narrative synthesis". Journal of Medical Virology. 94 (12): 5766–5779. doi:10.1002/jmv.28060. ISSN 0146-6615. PMC 9538017. PMID 35945190. Worobey, Michael; Levy, Joshua I.; Serrano, Lorena M. Malpica; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Pekar, Jonathan E.; Goldstein, Stephen A.; Rasmussen, Angela L.; Kraemer, Moritz U. G.; Newman, Chris; Koopmans, Marion P. G.; Suchard, Marc A. (2022-07-26). "The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic". Science. 377 (6609): 951–959. Bibcode:2022Sci...377..951W. doi:10.1126/science.abp8715. PMC 9348750. PMID 35881010. Pekar, Jonathan E.; Magee, Andrew; Parker, Edyth; Moshiri, Niema; Izhikevich, Katherine; Havens, Jennifer L.; Gangavarapu, Karthik; Malpica Serrano, Lorena Mariana; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Matteson, Nathaniel L.; Zeller, Mark (2022-07-26). "The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2". Science. 377 (6609): 960–966. Bibcode:2022Sci...377..960P. doi:10.1126/science.abp8337. ISSN 0036-8075. PMC 9348752. PMID 35881005. Isonne, Claudia; De Blasiis, Maria Roberta; Turatto, Federica; Mazzalai, Elena; Marzuillo, Carolina; De Vito, Corrado; Villari, Paolo; Baccolini, Valentina (June 2022). "What Went Wrong with the IMMUNI Contact-Tracing App in Italy? A Cross-Sectional Survey on the Attitudes and Experiences among Healthcare University Students". Life. 12 (6): 871. Bibcode:2022Life...12..871I. doi:10.3390/life12060871. ISSN 2075-1729. PMC 9225335. PMID 35743902. Zhao, Shilei; Hou, Yali; Zhang, Xiaolong; Hughes, Alice; Liu, Na; Peng, Minsheng; Wang, Qihui; Xue, Yongbiao; Chen, Hua (2022-05-24). "Pinpointing the animal origins of SARS-CoV-2: a genomic approach". Journal of Genetics and Genomics. 49 (9): 900–902. doi:10.1016/j.jgg.2022.05.002. ISSN 1673-8527. PMC 9128337. PMID 35623453. Frutos, Roger; Pliez, Olivier; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (2022-05-01). "There is no "origin" to SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 207: 112173. Bibcode:2022ER....207k2173F. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112173. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 8493644. PMID 34626592. Borsetti, Alessandra; Scarpa, Fabio; Maruotti, Antonello; Divino, Fabio; Ceccarelli, Giancarlo; Giovanetti, Marta; Ciccozzi, Massimo (April 2022). "The unresolved question on COVID‐19 virus origin: The three cards game?". Journal of Medical Virology. 94 (4): 1257–1260. doi:10.1002/jmv.27519. ISSN 0146-6615. PMID 34897750. S2CID 245171943. Temmam, Sarah; Vongphayloth, Khamsing; Baquero, Eduard; Munier, Sandie; Bonomi, Massimiliano; Regnault, Béatrice; Douangboubpha, Bounsavane; Karami, Yasaman; Chrétien, Delphine; Sanamxay, Daosavanh; Xayaphet, Vilakhan (April 2022). "Bat coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2 and infectious for human cells". Nature. 604 (7905): 330–336. Bibcode:2022Natur.604..330T. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04532-4. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 35172323. Barker, Hannah; Chen, Chen (March 2022). "Pandemic Outbreaks and the Language of Violence: Discussing the Origins of the Black Death and COVID-19". Chest: S0012369222004433. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2022.03.010. PMC 8925085. PMID 35305972. Zhai, Yida; Yan, Zheng (2022-03-24). "Political Ideology, Ingroup Favoritism, and Conspiratorial Thinking: Patriotism, Nationalism, and COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories". Psychological Reports. 126 (4): 1784–1802. doi:10.1177/00332941221079727. ISSN 0033-2941. PMC 8958302. PMID 35324351. Voskarides, Konstantinos (2022-03-18). "SARS-CoV-2: tracing the origin, tracking the evolution". BMC Medical Genomics. 15 (1): 62. doi:10.1186/s12920-022-01208-w. ISSN 1755-8794. PMC 8931788. PMID 35303887. DiEuliis, Diane; Giordano, James (2022-02-28). "The Need for Modernization of Biosecurity in the Post-COVID World". mSphere. 7 (2): e00025–22. doi:10.1128/msphere.00025-22. ISSN 2379-5042. PMC 9044947. PMID 35224977. Liu, William (2023-04-05). "Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan Seafood Market". Nature: 1–3. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06043-2. PMID 37019149. Retrieved 19 July 2023. Lawler, Odette K; Allan, Hannah L; Baxter, Peter W J; Castagnino, Romi; Tor, Marina Corella; Dann, Leah E; Hungerford, Joshua; Karmacharya, Dibesh; Lloyd, Thomas J; López-Jara, María José; Massie, Gloeta N; Novera, Junior; Rogers, Andrew M; Kark, Salit (November 2021). "The COVID-19 pandemic is intricately linked to biodiversity loss and ecosystem health". The Lancet. Planetary Health. 5 (11): e840–e850. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00258-8. PMC 8580505. PMID 34774124. Primary: Chan, Yujia Alina; Zhan, Shing Hei (November 2021). "The emergence of the spike furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2". Molecular Biology and Evolution. PMID 34788836. Rozado, David (September 2021). "Prevalence in News Media of Two Competing Hypotheses about COVID-19 Origins". Social Sciences. 10 (9): 320. doi:10.3390/socsci10090320. ISSN 2076-0760. Holmes, Edward C.; Goldstein, Stephen A.; Rasmussen, Angela L.; Robertson, David L.; Crits-Christoph, Alexander; Wertheim, Joel O.; Anthony, Simon J.; Barclay, Wendy S.; Boni, Maciej F.; Doherty, Peter C.; Farrar, Jeremy; Geoghegan, Jemma L.; Jiang, Xiaowei; Leibowitz, Julian L.; Neil, Stuart J.D.; Skern, Tim; Weiss, Susan R.; Worobey, Michael; Andersen, Kristian G.; Garry, Robert F.; Rambaut, Andrew (August 2021). "The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review". Cell. 184 (19): 4848–4856. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017. PMID 34480864. Lytras, Spyros; Xia, Wei; Hughes, Joseph; Jiang, Xiaowei; Robertson, David L. (17 August 2021). "The animal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Science. 373 (6558): 968–970. Bibcode:2021Sci...373..968L. doi:10.1126/science.abh0117. PMID 34404734. Singh, Devika; Yi, Soojin V. (April 2021). "On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2". Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 53 (4): 537–547. doi:10.1038/s12276-021-00604-z. PMC 8050477. PMID 33864026. Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 95: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401. Sallard, Erwan; Halloy, José; Casane, Didier; Decroly, Etienne; Van Helden, Jacques (February 2021). "Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review". Environmental Chemistry Letters. 19 (2): 769–785. Bibcode:2021EnvCL..19..769S. doi:10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1. PMID 33558807. Hakim, Mohamad S. (14 February 2021). "SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology. 31 (6): e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. ISSN 1052-9276. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302. Barh, Debmalya; Silva Andrade, Bruno; Tiwari, Sandeep; Giovanetti, Marta; Góes-Neto, Aristóteles; Alcantara, Luiz Carlos Junior; Azevedo, Vasco; Ghosh, Preetam (1 September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2". Le Infezioni in Medicina. 28 (3): 302–311. ISSN 1124-9390. PMID 32920565. Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (19 May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. ISSN 1074-7613. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464. Zhang, Yong-Zhen; Holmes, Edward C. (April 2020). "A Genomic Perspective on the Origin and Emergence of SARS-CoV-2". Cell. 181 (2): 223–227. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.035. PMID 32220310. Primary: Andersen, Kristian G.; Rambaut, Andrew; Lipkin, W. Ian; Holmes, Edward C.; Garry, Robert F. (March 2020). "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 26 (4): 450–452. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. ISSN 1546-170X. PMC 7095063. PMID 32284615.

[]  · Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
Michael R. Gordon and Warren P. Strobel (20 June 2023). "U.S.-Funded Scientist Among Three Chinese Researchers Who Fell Ill Amid Early Covid-19 Outbreak". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 21 June 2023. Jonathan Calvert and George Arbuthnott (10 June 2023). "What really went on inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid erupted". Archived from the original on 10 June 2023. Retrieved 10 June 2023. Mara Hvistendahl and Benjamin Mueller (23 April 2023). "Chinese Censorship Is Quietly Rewriting the Covid-19 Story". Archived from the original on 24 April 2023. Retrieved 30 April 2023. Sasha Pezenik, Josh Margolin, Kaitlyn Morris, and Terry Moran (18 April 2023). "New report from Senate Republicans doubles down on COVID lab leak theory". ABC news. Retrieved 20 April 2023.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Paun, Carmen; Zeller, Shawn; Reader, Ruth; Leonard, Ben; Scullion, Grace. "Cross-examining the lab-leak theorists". POLITICO. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Max, Tani. "ProPublica scrambles to check translation in COVID origin story". Semafor. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Mueller, Benjamin; Zimmer, Carl (27 October 2022). "G.O.P. Senator's Report on Covid Origins Suggests Lab Leak, but Offers Little New Evidence". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Chan, Alina (3 June 2024). "Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 August 2024. Kao, Katherine; Eban, Jeff. "COVID-19 Origins: Investigating a "Complex and Grave Situation" Inside a Wuhan Lab". ProPublica. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Grim, Ryan. "NIH Awards New Grant to U.S. Organization at Center of Covid-19 Lab Leak Controversy". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Cohen, Jon. "Republican Senate staff tout lab-leak theory of the pandemic's origin". Science. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Cohen, Jon. "From 'open-minded' to 'underwhelming,' mixed reactions greet latest COVID-19 origin report". Science. Retrieved 2022-06-12. "China calls COVID 'lab leak' theory a lie after WHO report". AP NEWS. 2022-06-10. Retrieved 2022-06-14. Schulson, Michael (2022-06-01). "The Challenges of Calculating a Lab Leak Risk". Undark Magazine. Retrieved 2022-06-14. Piper, Kelsey (2022-04-05). "Why experts are terrified of a human-made pandemic — and what we can do to stop it". Vox. Retrieved 2022-04-05. Eban, Katherine (2022-03-31). ""This Shouldn't Happen": Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2022-04-03. Law, Tara (2022-03-29). "Lab Leaks Are a Small But Real Risk in Ukraine. Russian Disinformation Is The True Threat". Time. Retrieved 2022-04-03. Zimmer, Carl (2022-03-21). "'He Goes Where the Fire Is': A Virus Hunter in the Wuhan Market". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-22. Maxmen, Amy (2022-03-17). "Scientists struggle to probe COVID's origins amid sparse data from China". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00732-0. Gallagher, Evangeline (2022-03-09). "This Is How Covid Started. And Here's How We Stop the Next One". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-03-22. Thacker, Paul (2022-03-08). "Is the media still stifling the lab-leak theory?". UnHerd. Retrieved 2022-03-17. Jon, Cohen (2022-02-28). "Do three new studies add up to proof of COVID-19's origin in a Wuhan animal market?". Science. doi:10.1126/science.adb1727. Maxmen, Amy (2022-02-27). "Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic's start, studies suggest". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00584-8. ISSN 0028-0836. Zimmer, Carl; Mueller, Benjamin (26 February 2022). "New Research Points to Wuhan Market as Pandemic Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 April 2022. Knapton, Sarah (2022-02-22). "Wuhan lab leak theory 'accepted as likely behind closed doors at No 10'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-23. Lerner, Sharon (2022-02-20). "NIH Sent The Intercept 292 Fully Redacted Pages Related to Virus Research in Wuhan". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Qiu, Jane (2022-02-09). "Meet the scientist at the center of the covid lab leak controversy". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Pinkstone, Joe (2022-02-03). "Covid lab leak theories 'have put world at risk of a new pandemic'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Knapton, Sarah (2022-01-11). "Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt 'international harmony'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Achenbach, Joel (18 November 2021). "Prominent scientist who said lab-leak theory of covid-19 origin should be probed now believes evidence points to Wuhan market". The Washington Post. Honigsbaum, Mark (15 November 2021). "Viral by Alina Chan and Matt Ridley review – was Covid-19 really made in China?". the Guardian. Rindsberg, Ashley (15 November 2021). "The Lab Leak Fiasco". Tablet. Blakely, Rhys (11 November 2021). "The Covid-19 lab-leak theory: 'I've had death threats'". The Times. Kormann, Carolyn (12 October 2021). "The Mysterious Case of the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. Federman, Daniel Engber, Adam (25 September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Debate Just Got Even Messier". The Atlantic. Retrieved 25 September 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Cohen, Jon (2021-09-02). "Why many scientists say it's unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a 'lab leak'". Science. Retrieved 2022-06-11. Oreskes, Naomi (September 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory of COVID's Origin Is Not Totally Irrational". Scientific American. Dyer, Owen (27 July 2021). "Covid-19: China stymies investigation into pandemic's origins". BMJ. 374. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1890. n1890. Doucleff, Michaeleen (2021-07-19). "New Data Leads To Rethinking (Once More) Where The Pandemic Actually Began". WBUR. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Krishnaswamy, S.; Govindarajan, T. R. (16 July 2021). "The controversy being created about the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19". Frontline. Kasprak, Alex (16 July 2021). "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak". Snopes.com. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Thacker, Paul D. (8 July 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". BMJ. 374: n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656. ISSN 1756-1833. Jacobsen, Rowan (29 June 2021). "Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan". MIT Technology Review. McKelvey, Tara (27 June 2021). "Wuhan lab-leak theory fuels Trump comeback rally". BBC News. Fay Cortez, Michelle (27 June 2021). "The Last—And Only—Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Regalado, Antonio (25 June 2021). "They called it a conspiracy theory. But Alina Chan tweeted life into the idea that the virus came from a lab". MIT Technology Review. Hvistendahl, Mara (19 June 2021). "I Visited a Chinese Lab at the Center of a Biosafety Debate. What I Learned Helps Explain the Clash Over Covid-19's Origins". The Intercept. Evans, Anna Muldoon, Nicholas G. (18 June 2021). "There Is No Good Way to Even Investigate the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Ling, Justin (15 June 2021). "The Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Hold Up". Foreign Policy. Folmer, Kaitlyn (14 June 2021). "Nature-based or lab leak? Unraveling the debate over the origins of COVID-19". ABC News. Wallace-Wells, David (12 June 2021). "The Implications of the Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer. Larson, Christina; Merchant, Nomaan (9 June 2021). "EXPLAINER: The US investigation into COVID-19 origins". AP NEWS. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Maxmen, Amy; Mallapaty, Smriti (8 June 2021). "The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don't know". Nature. 594 (7863): 313–315. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01529-3. Irfan, Umair (7 June 2021). "The lab leak hypothesis, explained". Vox. Jacobsen, Rowan (6 June 2021). "How amateur sleuths broke the Wuhan Lab story and embarrassed the media". Newsweek.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) (The reliability of Newsweek post-2013 is debated and context-specific. One rationale for why this particular source is probably not unreliable is presented here.) "How the 'Wuhan lab leak' went from conspiracy theory to top presidential priority". The Week UK. 4 June 2021. Eban, Katherine (3 June 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19's Origins". Vanity Fair. Sohn, Rebecca (3 June 2021). "A Very Calm Guide to the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine. Palus, Shannon (29 May 2021). "Just Because We're Talking About the Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Mean It's Come True". Slate Magazine. Brumfiel, Geoff (28 May 2021). "Many Scientists Still Think The Coronavirus Came From Nature". NPR.org. Beaumont, Peter (2021-05-27). "Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far". The Guardian. Zimmer, Carl; Gorman, James; Mueller, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "Scientists Don't Want to Ignore the 'Lab Leak' Theory, Despite No New Evidence". The New York Times. Hinshaw, Drew; Page, Jeremy (27 May 2021). "Time Is Running Out in Covid-19 Origins Inquiry, Say WHO-Led Team Members". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Wallace-Wells, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. Maxmen, Amy (27 May 2021). "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers". Nature. 594 (7861): 15–16. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01383-3. Whipple, Tom (27 May 2021). "Could a Wuhan lab leak really be to blame for Covid?". The Times. Kessler, Glenn (25 May 2021). "Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible". The Washington Post. Hinshaw, Michael R. Gordon, Warren P. Strobel and Drew (23 May 2021). "WSJ News Exclusive Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin". Wall Street Journal.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Kannan, Saikiran (2021-05-18). "Bat out of hell? Covid is global but questions over Wuhan lab leak won't go away". India Today. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Jacobsen, Rowan (May 13, 2021). "Top researchers are calling for a real investigation into the origin of covid-19". MIT Technology Review. Gorman, James; Barnes, Julian E. (26 March 2021). "The C.D.C.'s ex-director offers no evidence in favoring speculation that the coronavirus originated in a lab". The New York Times. Rogin, Josh (8 March 2021). "In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened". Politico Magazine. Baker, Nicholson (4 January 2021). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer. Jacobsen, Rowan (9 September 2020). "Could COVID-19 Have Escaped from a Lab?". Boston Magazine. Jacobsen, Rowan (14 May 2020). "The non-paranoid person's guide to viruses escaping from labs". Mother Jones.

[]  · Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
Garry, Robert F. (2022-11-22). "The evidence remains clear: SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (47): e2214427119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2214427119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9704731. PMID 36355862.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) Worobey, Michael; Rasmussen, Angela. "Conspiracy Theories About COVID-19 Help Nobody". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Gorski, David (2022-08-01). "The rise and fall of the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 2022-08-12. Harrison, Neil L.; Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2022-05-24). "A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (21): e2202769119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2202769119. ISSN 0027-8424. Frutos, Roger; Pliez, Olivier; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (2022-05-01). "There is no "origin" to SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 207: 112173. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112173. ISSN 0013-9351. PMC 8493644. PMID 34626592.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) Holmes, Edward C. (2022-03-11). "COVID-19—lessons for zoonotic disease". Science. 375 (6585): 1114–1115. doi:10.1126/science.abn2222. ISSN 0036-8075. Lewandowsky, Stephan; Jacobs, Peter; Neil, Stuart (2022-03-01). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth". Scientific American. Graner, François; Courtier-Orgogozo, Virginie; Decroly, Etienne; Ebright, Richard H.; Btler, Colin D; Fabien, Colombo; Kaina, Bernd; Rahalkar, Monali C.; Halloy, José; Bahulikar, Rahul A.; Theißen, Günter,; Leitenberg, Milton; Morand, Serge; Kakeya, Hideki; Jean-Michel, Claverie; van Helden, Jacques (December 2021). "Comment of a critical review about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" (PDF). doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Orent, Wendy (28 October 2021). "Why I Still Believe Covid-19 Could Not Have Originated in a Lab". Undark Magazine. Retrieved 31 October 2021. Wain-Hobson, Simon. "Virology: Dangerous gain of function research has gotten out of hand and needs to be reined in". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. ISSN 0174-4909. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Muller, Richard; Quay, Steven (5 October 2021). "Science Closes In on Covid's Origins - Four studies—including two from WHO—provide powerful evidence favoring the lab-leak theory". The Wall Street Journal. Redfield, Robert; Sigel, Marc (15 August 2021). "The World Needs to Know What Happened at the Wuhan Lab". Wall Street Journal. Godlee, Fiona (8 July 2021). "Covid 19: We need a full open independent investigation into its origins". The BMJ: n1721. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1721. Baltimore, David (2021-06-22). "The Debate over Origins of SARS-CoV-2". California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Sachs, Jeffrey D. (22 June 2021). "Finding the Origins of COVID-19 and Preventing Future Pandemics". Project Syndicate. Knight, Peter (21 June 2021). "COVID-19: why lab-leak theory is back despite little new evidence". The Conversation. Rodrigo, Allen (14 June 2021). "The COVID-19 lab-leak hypothesis is plausible because accidents happen. I should know". The Conversation. Gorman, James; Zimmer, Carl (2021-06-14). "Scientist Opens Up About His Early Email to Fauci on Virus Origins". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-02-21. Balaram, P. (10 June 2021). "The murky origins of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic" (PDF). Current Science. 120 (11): 1663–1666. Seyran, Murat; Pizzol, Damiano; Adadi, Parise; El‐Aziz, Tarek M. A.; Hassan, Sk. Sarif; Soares, Antonio; Kandimalla, Ramesh; Lundstrom, Kenneth; Tambuwala, Murtaza; Aljabali, Alaa A. A.; Lal, Amos; Azad, Gajendra K.; Choudhury, Pabitra P.; Uversky, Vladimir N.; Sherchan, Samendra P.; Uhal, Bruce D.; Rezaei, Nima; Brufsky, Adam M. (March 2021). "Questions concerning the proximal origin of SARS‐CoV‐2". Journal of Medical Virology. 93 (3): 1204–1206. doi:10.1002/jmv.26478. Rasmussen, Angela L. (January 2021). "On the origins of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 27 (1): 9–9. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01205-5. ISSN 1546-170X. Retrieved 18 July 2021. Hayes, Polly (13 July 2020). "Here's how scientists know the coronavirus came from bats and wasn't made in a lab". The Conversation. Talaat, Khaled (6 May 2020). "Wuhan Denialism". Tablet.

[]  · Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
Wade, Nicholas (2022-12-04). "Proximal Orchestrations". City Journal. Retrieved 2022-12-06. Yglesias, Matthew (3 November 2022). "The ProPublica-Vanity Fair report on Covid's origins is explosive. Is it reliable?". the Guardian. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Hiltzik, Michael (1 November 2022). "Column: ProPublica and Vanity Fair are pushing the COVID lab-leak theory, but their exposé is a train wreck". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Wade, Nicholas (2022-03-20). "Why Science Writers Don't Report Objectively on Covid's Origins". City Journal. Retrieved 2022-03-22. Beyerstein, Lindsay (2021-12-10). "This Terrible Book Shows Why the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory Won't Die". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Engber, Daniel (2021-11-24). "The Lab-Leak Theory Meets Its Perfect Match". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Ridley, Matt (20 November 2021). "The Covid lab leak theory just got even stronger". The Spectator. Weissmueller, Zach (18 November 2021). "Was It a Lab Leak? The Mysterious Origin of COVID-19". Reason. Zinberg, Joel (1 November 2021). "The Evidence Mounts". City Journal. Grant, Bob (July 1, 2021). "Labs, Leaks, and Liability". The Scientist. (editorial on how media covers the hypothesis) Beyerstein, Lindsay (2021-06-29). "The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2022-02-20. Young, Alison (June 17, 2021). "'I remember it very well': Dr. Fauci describes a secret 2020 meeting to talk about COVID origins". USA Today. Bio Soave, Robby (4 June 2021). "The Media's Lab Leak Debacle Shows Why Banning 'Misinformation' Is a Terrible Idea". Reason. Wade, Nicholas (5 May 2021). "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Ridley, Matt; Chan, Alina (April 10, 2021). "Bats, pangolins, wet market, lab? The mystery deepens". The Weekend Australian Magazine. Young, Alison (March 22, 2021). "Could an accident have caused COVID-19? Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory shouldn't be dismissed". USA Today.

[]  · Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!
"An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Interim Report" (PDF). US Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions Minority Oversight Staff. October 2022. Retrieved 2022-11-03. Preliminary. "Preliminary Report for the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO)". www.who.int. 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-06-12. Updated Assessment on COVID-19 Origins (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 27 August 2021. p. 17. Retrieved 29 October 2021. (Executive summary of the report) The Origins of COVID-19: an investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (PDF). US House Foreign Affairs Committee Minority Staff. August 2021. p. 84. Retrieved 7 September 2021. Brief: Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 11 June 2021. p. 3. Retrieved 7 September 2021. "WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part. Joint Report" (PDF). World Health Organization. 30 March 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Bandeira, Luiza; Aleksejeva, Nika; Knight, Tessa; Le Roux, Jean (February 2021). Weaponized: how rumors about Covid-19's origins led to a narrative arms race (PDF). Atlantic Council. OCLC 1239728647. USA House Oversight Committee (July 2023). "Interim Staff Report – The Proximal Origin of a Cover-Up: Did the "Bethesda Boys" Downplay a Lab Leak?". Retrieved 18 July 2023. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (June 2023). "Potential Links Between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic" (PDF). Retrieved 19 July 2023. Testimony of John Radcliffe, US Director of National Intelligence 2020-2021, House Hearing on the Origins of COVID-19, Transcript: [3]; C-Span, 18 April 2024, 16.37mins [4]

References

WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses

The current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."

It is FALSE. There is (at least one) publicly available paper which proves the contrary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 is an article from 2017 with (among others) authored by Daszak and Zheng-Li Shi (the head of the WIV). "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus".

It contains this passage:

"Construction of recombinant viruses

Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously [23] (S9 Fig). The fragments E and F were re-amplified with primer pairs (FE, 5’-AGGGCCCACCTGGCACTGGTAAGAGTCATTTTGC-3’, R-EsBsaI, 5’-ACTGGTCTCTTCGTTTAGTTATTAACTAAAATATCACTAGACACC-3’) and (F-FsBsaI, 5’-TGAGGTCTCCGAACTTATGGATTTGTTTATGAG-3’, RF, 5’-AGGTAGGCCTCTAGGGCAGCTAAC-3’), respectively. The products were named as fragment Es and Fs, which leave the spike gene coding region as an independent fragment. BsaI sites (5’-GGTCTCN|NNNN-3’) were introduced into the 3’ terminal of the Es fragment and the 5’ terminal of the Fs fragment, respectively. The spike sequence of Rs4231 was amplified with the primer pair (F-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-AGTCGTCTCAACGAACATGTTTATTTTCTTATTCTTTCTCACTCTCAC-3’ and R-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-TCACGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTGACACCCTTG-3’). The S gene sequence of Rs7327 was amplified with primer pair (F-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’-AGTGGTCTCAACGAACATGAAATTGTTAGTTTTAGTTTTTGCTAC-3’ and R-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’- TCAGGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTAACACCCTTG-3’). The fragment Es and Fs were both digested with BglI (NEB) and BsaI (NEB). The Rs4231 S gene was digested with BsmBI. The Rs7327 S gene was digested with BsaI. The other fragments and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) were prepared as described previously. Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously [23]."

^^^^ This is exactly "genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.165.236.120 (talk • contribs)

Lancet Microbe

Has a new editorial:

• The Lancet Microbe Editorial Board (2024). "COVID-19 origins: plain speaking is overdue". The Lancet Microbe: 100953. doi:10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.07.016.

The idea that SARS-CoV-2 is of unnatrual origin is "simply wrong" it says (among other things). Could usefully be used to update our article to get with the current science ... Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The author of this opinion screed is not a scientist, does not have a PhD, and has no research publications in the field. So no, its not useful for updating this article that is already very biased towards the natural origin theory. 120.29.78.126 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Screed? The Lancet is a 200 year old peer-reviewed journal published by Elsevier, a highly respected academic publisher. This fits our bias towards reliable secondary sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The little known Lancet Microbe is not the Lancet and the author of this opinion piece has no scientific credentials or publications to his name. It is not a reliable source for the "simply wrong" claim. 112.198.120.195 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Err, is this trolling? The Lancet Microbe has an impact factor over 20[5] and is an Index Medicus publication. Scopus ranks it 3rd (of 80) infection disease journals on the planet. The editorial has not a single 'author' but is ascribed to the entire editorial board. So it is hard to imagine a more authoritative and prestigious source for use on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from casting aspersions and stay civil. Lancet Microbe is relatively new journal, making its impact factor less significant, and it does not have an editorial "board". This piece was authored by its editor in chief Onisillos Sekkides, who disclosed it on his Twitter. As an editorial, the piece is suitable for statements attributed to that editor or author, but not for a statement of fact like calling the lab leak theory "simply wrong". 120.29.78.126 (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The piece is literally signed by "The Lancet Microbe". Such editorials are strong WP:MEDRS and excellent secondary sources. In judging sources Wikipedia follows reliable assessments (as from Scopus), not the ignorant ones from random editors. Bon courage (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies are very clear on how editorials may be used as sources and what they are (and are not) reliable for. Please stay civil and refrain from calling other editors ignorant. 124.104.164.12 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024

The information posted on Wikipedia about the origin of Covid 19 is incorrect and outdated and therefore should be updated. Please see below: https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/ 2601:643:282:90A0:6DCC:6606:9DCF:D8F2 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. House committee transcripts are WP:PRIMARY. In addition, on this topic politicians often disagree with top quality academic scholarship such as review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in MEDLINE-indexed journals. In a situation like this, we go with the top quality academic scholarship, and not the politicians. WP:MEDRS, WP:NOLABLEAK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a notice at the top of this page clearly stating that Covid origins are not BMI. It's surprising how often senior editors need to be reminded of this. - Palpable (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There is? As far as I can see it says there is no consensus on this one way or the other, but this is still primary source, and does not in fact Trump other sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to WP:BMI, but not to WP:NOTBMI. That is the position, and it has never been otherwise for this topic (or any other). Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, but what is the claim it does not apply to covid origins true, if it contradicts what BMI's say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

From the notice: There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS.

You cannot use MEDRS to dismiss the investigations of the House, Senate, and Intelligence Community, and again it's really surprising how often editors here seem to forget that. I'm just posting a helpful reminder. - Palpable (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Err, nor can we use it to overturn BMI claims, that is the point. We can say they have said it, not that its a fact. Which we in fact do. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In any case this bonkers political theatre from the US is really irrelevant to a serious article except infsofar as rational sources comment on it - which they do.[6] Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about overturning BMI claims.

There is no overturning because nobody is suggesting that the Worobey etc. papers not be cited, just that the results (such as they are) of the investigations are also DUE. Other Wikipedia articles seem to be able to handle disagreement between sources just fine.

And there are no BMI claims because, again, there is consensus that origins are not BMI.

- Palpable (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"The information posted on Wikipedia about the origin of Covid 19 is incorrect and outdated and therefore should be updated.", yes the OP wants us to say this is a fact. And we do mention the reports findings. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to have any coverage of the House and Senate hearings from 2024, that does seem outdated to me. Many of them were focused on the DEFUSE proposal which also barely gets a mention.

I can see why people have given up trying to update the article. - Palpable (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The OPs source is from 2023. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the source is from 2023, or that its not even a good source. The rejection reason given by Novem Linguae was that politicians are at odds with the science. That is not true. 120.29.78.126 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It does if the claim this is a report form 2024. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not true That is a really crazy claim. Lots of politicians, especially American ones, are climate change deniers, creationists and/or COVID deniers. Even if that were not so, politicians are obviously never a reliable source on science. It is not their field of expertise, and Wikipedia prefers sources with the right field of expertise. Duh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not at odds with the science to call for investigations into the lab leak theory. Numerous scientists and scientific organizations support this stance, including the WHO. 120.29.78.126 (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The link text explicitly contains the words science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak. That is at odds with science. Do not move the goalposts by pretending it is about something else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I made a mistake by mentioning MEDRS. The main idea I wanted to convey is that top academic sources pretty much always outrank all other sources. And we have an abundance of top academic sources on this topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct, Also, all other sources pretty much always outrank groups of American politicians. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support creation of a new U.S. Congressional Hearings subsection in the Political, academic and media attention section about the numerous meetings in the Senate and House referencing all the reports from reliable sources on the subject. There are more than enough such reports in reliable news covering many aspects of origin investigations. 120.29.78.126 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's just politicians trying to score political points. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  You can include that claim if supported by reliable sources. A total of 7 congressional hearings were held, with Dr. Fauci participating in 5 of them, and all were covered by reliable sources. These hearings addressed alleged NIH funding of gain-of-function at the Wuhan lab and the possibility of an accidental release, making them highly relevant to this article. 112.198.120.195 (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Two sides, one shouting insults, accusations, and conspiracy theories at those testifying; and the other shouting insults and accusations at the other side. There have been many congressional hearings broadcast lately with innumerable false claims that are just political talking points. Let us stick with reliable, medical sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Note: A subsection was previously added by @ThomasMikael and later removed entirely by @Slatersteven [7]. As @Palpable mentioned, reverting and deleting good faith contributions in this manner can discourage valuable community contributions. It would have been better to revise the text and add more references. 112.198.120.195 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  IMO, the removal was necessary. One can also learn by being reverted. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

New Journal of Virology commentary

New piece, which is interesting for contextualizing lab leak as part of the anti-science movement. It also addresses the Alina Chan newspaper article others have mentioned.

• Alwine J, Goodrum F, Banfield B, Bloom D, Britt WJ, et al. (August 2024). "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence". J Virol: e0124024. doi:10.1128/jvi.01240-24. PMID 39087765.

Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Way too much time has already been spent in this article about the conspiracy and pseudoscience aspects of the lab leak theory. It doesn't really need anymore of that. What this article needs is updated information regarding the 2023 report by the US department of Energy indicating their research concludes that the virus did in fact come from a lab. This is by all means a credible source, and it's not even mentioned in the heading. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Err, it's 2024 now and things have moved on. There is some recent coverage here[8] which explains how the DoE stuff was mis-reported as part of the political circus. Your suggestion (that "their research concludes that the virus did in fact come from a lab") mirrors the misinformation of the time. Bon courage (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Err, Things have not moved on. There hasn't been any major revelations that discredit the DOE's research and at the very least it should still be mentioned as many of the other sources are even older. According to the DOE: “The Department of Energy continues to support the thorough, careful, and objective work of our intelligence professionals in investigating the origins of COVID-19, as the President directed.” So you're saying this is all one big conspiracy by the Biden administration? It seems to me like you're the conspiracy theorist here if that's the case.SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been some superb sources published. And Wikipedia follows sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As I've said several times, the DOE report is a very credible source and Wikipedia articles should state opposing positions on the subject matter and a source as important as this should be be in the head like countless other sources are already. Wikipedia's foundation is a neutral point of view, not one point of view as it currently represents. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so we're not going to over-inflate a minor piece of the puzzle by misinterpreting one agency's tentative view from 2023. That would be WP:PROFRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Simply mentioning the study in the head is not "overinflating an agencies point of view". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an opinion piece. It seems to me you're the only one with an agenda here and you want this article to fit your agenda. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read the message on your User Talk page carefully. Bon courage (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No mention of the 2023 Department of Energy report /No longer fringe theory

In 2023 the US Department of Energy concluded Covid 19 likely came from a lab in Wuhan. This means the lab leak theory is no longer a fringe theory, and in fact this report by the US DOE seems to be the most recent research of credibility that has been done on the virus' origin. The "consensus" that the virus came from a market comes from research that came out before DOE investigation. This isn't 100% confirmation of the veracity of the lab leak theory but this report should definitely be stated in the head of this article and mentioned further in the body and aspects of it being an unrespected theory should be reduced. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It is mentioned, and has been discussed at (extreme) length on this Talk page. Basically Wikipedia's not going to be over-emphasizing this, and what we have is about right. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You say "we" like there is some "Grand Council of Lab Leak Theory" that is in charge of the article. This is Wikipedia, everyone gets to input their opinion and consensus can change. The DOE study is in every way a reliable report and one of the most current bits of research that has been on the Virus' origin, and it absolutely deserves a mention in the head. Secondly it seems to me you need to slow your role in trying to control what goes into this topic. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's less than a year since a ginormous RfC on exactly this.[9] and we have better sources now even than then. The WP:BESTSOURCES are describing LL as racism-fuelled political theatre contributing to the anti-science movement (mostly in the US). Wikipedia just has to follow such quality sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with an anti-science movement. The United States Department of Energy has many of the most accomplished and well respected scientists in the world. Stop trying to drift away the topic into something it's not. This is simply about mentioning the DOE study in the heading and giving it more credence in the article which it absolutely should have. Again neutral point of view is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, not one point of view. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That was settled several months ago in an enormous RfC with 60 participating editors and 200 comments. Trying to re-litigate that, especially given the DOE source is now fading into the past, would probably count as WP:DE. You are aware this is a WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The responsibilities under the DOE intelligence arm are related to nuclear power and the protection of US energy assets and information, not medical investigations. As Bon courage says, there was a massive discussion on the DOE report resulting in a clear cut conclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We do metion it, and we had an RFC on it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, where do we call it a fringe theory? Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. USA nuclear scientists are not a very credible source on COVID-19 origins. We have other very credible sources that we can and do use instead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the DOE does not only run only nuclear labs. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is one of the DOE's national security laboratories with a significant focus on biosafety and biosecurity. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is another DOE lab involved in biosafety and biosecurity. In addition to the LLNL and LANL labs, there is also the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, all of which are tasked with conducting biosciences research. The DOE is the most aptly qualified federal agency on Covid origins, as well Covid treatments. The DOE's supercomputing resources aided in vaccine development. 103.164.118.54 (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Should probably put a link to this at the top of the article so the argument that DOE has no expertise stops being made. I think the reason the DOE opinion is not much discussed in the article is that, as multiple sources allude to, there is not a lot to say. We can speculate about what evidence they may have had, but other than that what is there to include beyond the content already in the article? fiveby(zero) 17:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

New SBM source

• Gorski DH (5 August 2024). "How conspiracy theories like COVID-19 'lab leak' harm science and public health". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 9 August 2024.

A useful up-to-date overview of the state of things. From this, we are fast approaching (maybe past?) the point where this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory". Bon courage (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it does, but it's probably Wikipedia's duty to report that the horse is dead. For NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thats not what I mean't. You are beating a dead horse. This section should not have been opened, especially based on an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In fact a WP:GREL source, especially for fringe topics such as this. See WP:SBM. Wikipedia moves on when the sourcing moves on. Dead horses don't move on. Bon courage (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What does that have to do with it being an editorial? Its clearly written as opinion, yes its expert opinion but its making no attempt at impartiality its arguing a POV (sceptical movement). The horse is dead, you are welcome to continue the beating. I will be elsewhere doing something constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You've made this mistake before, and been corrected. If you want to overturn the community consensus on what a reliable source is for scientific knowledge, you'll need to attempt it elsewhere. Bon courage (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not civil or collegial to make overly personal comments after an editor has said they are leaving a discussion to force them to continue to comment. Good day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Why shouldn't this section have been opened? Points to "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence" in first paragraph, already looks very useful. We can beat up on BC when he cites Gorski in preference to our 40 authors in Journal of Virology. fiveby(zero) 20:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence" is also commentary. That is besides the point that they don't actually seem to call it a conspiracy theory, the call it the "lab leak theory" or "lab leak hypothesis" so while we could cite Gorski for that we can't cite "our 40 authors in Journal of Virology" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You seemingly think everything is commentary opinion and nothing is knowledge (even opioids causing constipation IIRC). It's a bizarre, wrong view which is of no use to us here. I suggest it's ignored and we stick to the WP:PAGs. We should certainly cite "our 40 authors in Journal of Virology" - I opened a section on just that source above. Bon courage (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC); change 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Its published in the commentary section... Its labeled commentary... The four sections of the piece are "abstract," "commentary," "acknowledgments," and "references." The section above is called "New Journal of Virology commentary" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I mean 'opinion' not 'commentary' per youc comments before.[10] The crucial thing is NPOV applies: these secondary sources by experts on a topic a rich sources of knowledge which needs to be asserted if it's not seriously contested (these pieces will contain some opinion too). The non-need to attribute SBM, in general, has already been discussed on this very Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thats not in NPOV... And these are not secondary sources for wikipedia purposes... NPOV builds on V, and V has WP:RSEDITORIAL... Which says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If if were true this entire article and most of Wikipedia would need to be re-written. You say it's not NPOV but in fact YESPOV requires: "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested". In academic publishing editorials are often a rich source of knowledge which Wikipedia must assert (and probably some opinion too!). NPOV is not negotiable. WP:RSEDITORIAL is for the material from news organizations, so irrelevant here. Newspaper editorials and scholarly publishing editorials are rather different things. Bon courage (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to propose a re-write of V you can, but not here. SBM is a news organization, not a scholarly publishing house and we treat opinion pieces in scientific journals the same as news ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Err, it's not a "news organization" and the community has already considered it many times: see WP:SBM. Scientific journals seldom have 'opinion pieces', their commentaries and editorials are often golden secondary sources packed with knowledge we can (and do) happily assert - just as with WP:SBM. You've been told this before[11] but somehow keep popping up to bludgeon discussions with the same fundamentally mistaken understanding of NPOV and source types. As was said (not by me): "Gorski is not an opinion piece, and is WP:GREL. This is clearly supported by WP:RSPSOURCES and the RSN discussions it links". Bon courage (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Commentaries and editorials are types of opinion piece. If its not a journal and its not a scientific news organization, what is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a society's publication online (the New England Skeptical Society to be precise, a rational-scientific organization). Society publications are common in academia, in the olden days they were often journals.

Commentaries and editorials can have an opinion element, but often contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas – which make them secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The New England Skeptical Society is not an academic or professional society, unless I'm missing something it is not within academia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a "news organisation". Whether it's "in academia" is an academic question. For our purposes we know it's WP:GREL and that's what matters for the purposes of writing encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and we know how to handle editorials in GREL sources. The only one arguing against how we do things is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

By directly asserting anything that's not seriously contested, as NPOV requires. We do it here, we do it throughout Wikipedia. You keep bludgeoning Talk pages with your odd views but it seems you never actually edit articles to follow through with article edits to match. This means the only effect of these arguments is to clog up the Talk page, as here. Forgive me if I now ignore. Bon courage (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Again this level of personalization is neither civil or collegial. Even on the personal level I have a slighly higher percentage of mainspace edits than you do (and we have roughly the same amount of total edits) and when it comes to actual article creations I have almost an order of magnitude more than you do so your blanket criticism of my editing practices is unfounded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Scientific journals seldom have 'opinion pieces', their commentaries and editorials are often golden secondary sources packed with knowledge → this is patently false. Commentaries and editorials are not of the same quality as peer reviewed research, and should be not be treated as such. 103.164.118.54 (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nah, Wikipedia doesn't cite "research" but uses WP:SECONDARY sources, especially for sci/med. A random example of a good editorial would be something like this[12] for a roundup on Dengue fever. If in doubt check at WT:MED where tis is raised from time-to-time. Bon courage (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That source, like the drivel from Gorski that you cited above, is an editorial and has limitations on its use. We cannot use an editorial to support your POV that the lab leak theory is a racist conspiracy theory when we have much more qualified experts and organisations who say otherwise. 203.176.178.251 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the sourcing aligns more on saying it is/was fuelled by racism and xenophobia (both anti-Chinese and anti-American depending on which flavour of conspiracy you pick). This is somewhat covered in the article already. There is actually quite a bit of actual research on this topic too, for example doi:10.1177/21533687221125818. Bon courage (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And again the ASM piece does not support "this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory"" so not sure why we're quibbling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

SBM does refer to the "scientific hypothesis turned conspiracy theory known as lab leak". Bon courage (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So you wish to cite Gorski in preference to our 40 authors in Journal of Virology? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No, but maybe alongside. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

But they don't support the assertion that "this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory"" so how can they be cited alongside Gorski to support that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

They don't directly comment on whether the hypothesis is a conspiracy theory or not. For that, we need sources that consider that aspect of things. The point is, the sourcing is shifting and while there is moratorium on page move requests (i.e. renaming) unit 5 March 2024, it is only something that can be noted and not actioned. Let's see where we end up next Spring! Bon courage (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC); 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Then using them alongside would be a WP:SYNTH issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Only if something is synthesized. SBM expands upon (not contradicts) the other sources it cites, and Wikipedia can follow .... Bon courage (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Citing both a source and one which explains it for the same bit of info which can not be independently verified from the first source would be synth, in that situation you could only cite the second source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

All SBM articles, except the satirical ones, are pretty much the same. There is no distinction "this is an editorial or commentary, and this is not". Therefore, the WP:SBM decision applies to this article, and this discussion is unnecessary. SBM is a good source, period. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the distinction they make for the satirical ones? I've never seen a satire section on the site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

[13] --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Fascinating... So they do actually have a satire category[14], they just don't put the vast majority of the satire in it. Are you aware that they have a commentary category[15] in which they don't put the vast majority of their commentary? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I will not use this page as a forum. If you think SBM is not reliable, this is the wrong page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)