Wikipedia

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 26

< Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory
Latest comment: 1 year ago by SquirrelHill1971 in topic July 11, 2023 publication
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Sunday Times of London article

Latest comment: 1 year ago33 comments13 people in discussion

I would like to get a copy of this: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0. Lots of people are describing it as strong evidence for LL, and some are even saying "case closed". But I want to see for myself. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

https://archive.is/hC1US
Nothing looks like new information to me - all of this has been reported elsewhere - but it puts it all in one page. Sennalen (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Even if this article has nothing new, I think it should be cited, because it is such a highly reliable source. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be particularly reliable to me. It cites a lot of anonymous things and "confidential reports" which the public cannot verify. Typically we don't prefer sources with unverifiable statements. It is, thus, PRIMARY and we would want a more reliable secondary review of such things before we mention it or use it. Another good essay which makes this point clearly is WP:BNS — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
You could literally shut down Wikipedia if you don't like sources with "unverifiable statements." Don't ever quote most of the MSM. 185.182.71.29 (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The Sunday Times has reviewed hundreds of documents, including previously confidential reports, internal memos, scientific papers and email correspondence that has been obtained through sources or by freedom of information campaigners in the three years since the pandemic started. We also interviewed the US State Department investigators matches the definition of WP:SECONDARY IMO.
I'd also expect that the sourcing on bioweapons research would normally be rather weak compared to sources on civilian biomedical research. It's unreasonable to expect that information on bioweapons research would be published in unclassified peer-reviewed scientific journals. This alone doesn't make available mainstream news sources fringe. PaulT2022 (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the Times of London report is not covered in the article:
Scientists in Wuhan working alongside the Chinese military were combining the world’s most deadly coronaviruses to create a new mutant virus just as the pandemic began. If one continues to read the article, it seems they are actually attributing that to US investigators working for the State Department.
Also new to the article would be the claim about vaccines and bioweapons:
The investigators believe the Chinese military had taken an interest in developing a vaccine for the viruses so they could be used as potential bioweapons. If a country could inoculate its population against its own secret virus, it might have a weapon to shift the balance of world power.
The article treats the bioweapon idea as a conspiracy theory. This is out of step with what is being reported in the Times. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@SquirrelHill1971: Just a cautionary note that the (London) Times is no longer regarded in the UK as impeccably reliable, since their take over by Murdoch's News International, which also owns the (UK) Sun, Fox News, The Australian. It is a valid citation but I advise looking hard at what is said and what is unsaid. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
There is zero actual evidence that Wuhan labs were conducting gain of function chimeric work on live viruses. The only evidence is rejected grant proposals which would have had labs in North Carolina and Singapore conduct such work. We have none of our best available RSes saying such work actually occurred in Wuhan. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Additionally worth saying that one article from the Murdoch-owned Times which fails to cite any verifiable evidence does not , in one fell swoop, overturn the dozens of high quality RSes we have already in the article which treat the bio weapons theory as conspiracy-ridden gobbledygook. This reflects even more poorly on the article and calls further into question its overall verifiability. It seems it carries many FRINGEy viewpoints other sources do not treat as worth consideration. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
In a word: yep. XOR'easter (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it is entirely appropriate to bring up concerns about sources, including green sources, here at the talk page. I've done so myself. I'd also suggest that unless one can get a consensus that a formerly-reliable source is no longer reliable, it's a good idea to not try to enforce one's personal concerns in article space. This would parallel what I've done with my own concerns about sources authored by people operating under Chinese law. Bring it up in talk absolutely, maybe make a WP:BOLD edit based on it, but then back down unless/until you have consensus that the source is no longer considered WP:RS. And in case it's not clear, I don't personally see any problem with the Times of London. However, the discussion here on The Times of London appears to be close, with multiple users taking each point of view. That being the case, it could well make sense to bring it to WP:RSN. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
WIV has published GoF work- they inserted a Furin cleavage site in at least one sarbecovirus- SARS-1, IIRC. They did GoF on one virus that increased infectivity 10K times. IIRC they’ve published on other GoF beta coronaviruses. Baric has talked a lot about how he taught them his GoF techniques including the “no see um” technique to produce apparently undetectably genetically modified viruses. It’s the world’s biggest coronavirus lab; has BSL4 labs and is attached to Chinese military. Fauci said on one show that the reason we do our GoF in Wuhan is bc we don’t want mutant viruses escaping in New Jersey. NIH said it does GoF at WIV. None of this is ringing a bell? JustinReilly (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
WIV has published GoF work- they inserted a Furin cleavage site in at least one sarbecovirus- SARS-1, IIRC. They did GoF on one virus that increased infectivity 10K times
Sure, they are authors on papers where such work was done. Do we have evidence the work was conducted at WIV? Or was it done at a collaborator's laboratory in another country or city? Anyone who has worked in the sciences knows these papers are almost always multi-institutional. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Fauci’s defense to that in his testimony was that it was “molecularly impossible” that these virus(es) in the NIH funded paper by BatWoman he was being asked about could have been ascendant(s) of SARS-2. This was in the context of interrogating whether it leaked from WIV. I’m sure he would also have said the work was done somewhere else if that were the case. JustinReilly (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
It’s the world’s biggest coronavirus lab; has BSL4 labs and is attached to Chinese military
You appear to be confusing several different facilities in Wuhan.
Fauci said on one show that the reason we do our GoF in Wuhan is bc we don’t want mutant viruses escaping in New Jersey. NIH said it does GoF at WIV.
Where is the reliable source which says this? I recall only seeing this in conspiracy-ridden low quality sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I note the source does not say case closed, and is very careful to attribute everything to "US researchers". Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I was not implying that the source said that. I was referring to reactions to said source. Thank you very much for the link. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree at a minimum it’s no longer appropriate to assert in wikivoice that bioweapon hypothesis is conspiracy theory or misinformation. JustinReilly (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? I don't think we could even consider that unless we separated out the two competing bioweapon theories (US weapons and Chinese weapon). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a US lab bioweapon leak theory would be considered fringe etc. Doesn’t mean we can say that a lab engineered origin theory (in general) is a conspiracy theory. JustinReilly (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
lab engineered origin theory
Any lab-engineered origin theory which includes a project to create a bioweapon is FRINGE, by our sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
this part went off the rails
::We do not go by reactions to sources, unless those reactions are in RS, and not (say) "someblokeontheinterment.com". Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I was not saying that should go into the article. Just remarking on how people were interpreting the source on the web. There is no need to refute a suggestion I did not make. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
This is not a forum, it is a talk page about improving the article, not discussing the topic. This needs closing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

RSN will say it is reliable for what IT says, not for that being true. That would be a matter for wp:undue or wp:fringe. Also what will we use it for? as a source for what we already say? if so it will pass RSN, as it says exactly what other RS say.

So can some actually say what it is suggested we use it for? Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think above there are several users who want to use the source to justify removing any description of the bioweapons theory as a "conspiracy theory." I would oppose such a removal based on one questionable source without a great deal of secondary verification. We would need to compare the sourcing for what we have (many multiple RSes including scholarly sources) compared to this (one article from the Times) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Then (as I said) it's not a RS issue (but may be a wp:v issue, does it, in fact, say (in its voice) it's prooven?). Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by The Sunday Times article, but I still think it should be cited in the media-coverage section because it's a very notable newspaper. Just take care not to imply it's correct. 92.17.181.63 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

In order for us to do that, we need secondary sources which cover the fact that the Times said this. To say it's WP:DUE only because the Times said it would be conducting original research. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
These exist, e.g. https://asiatimes.com/2023/06/what-if-china-really-did-develop-covid-as-a-bioweapon/ 92.17.181.63 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
To consider mentioning in this article:
"The investigators spoke to two researchers working at a US laboratory who were collaborating with the Wuhan institute at the time of the outbreak. They said the Wuhan scientists had inserted furin cleavage sites into viruses in 2019 in exactly the way proposed in Daszak’s failed funding application to Darpa."
Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Item 1 of consensus needs to be re-evaluated

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Item 1 at the time of this writing states, "There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)". The date of the RfC is more than 2 years ago and there has been massive change in what reliable sources state about it. Therefore, Item 1 needs to be re-evaluated. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can start a new RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Where can the “consensus” be found. I’m not familiar. Agree it certainly needs to be changedJustinReilly (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The consensus box near the top of this talk page, which links to the prior discussions that established the current consensus. This one was from an RfC in February 2021, so a lot has changed since then. --skeptical scientist (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Circulating rumors

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments6 people in discussion

@Adoring nanny reverted my addition of the following text:

In the weeks leading up to the document's declassification, a number of unverified claims circulated stating that the government had direct evidence that three WIV researchers who were involved in a supposed bioweapons program had fallen ill in November of 2019, and that one of these persons (a researcher named Ben Hu) was the pandemic's "patient zero". The declassified report did not substantiate these allegations. Hu told Science that the claims were "ridiculous".

with the edit summary: Revert -- Addition contains material not in source. In particular, nothing says that the WSJ story was "unsubstantiated." The previous version handled this correctly -- Hu said the allegation was "ridiculous", so we report that. We don't contradict it in WikiVoice

Here's the issue with that edit summary: We don't mention the WSJ story at all. This edit is about the allegations published in Public and elsewhere that Ben Hu and two others were "confirmed" as patient zero, in government documents.

AN said: We don't contradict it in WikiVoice, I'm assuming meaning they disagreed with: The declassified report did not substantiate these allegations

But here's what our sources say:

  • a newly released U.S. report of declassified information on COVID-19’s origin, from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), fails to name him or substantiate that any WIV scientists had the initial cases of COVID-19. - Science (Jon Cohen) [1]
  • However, US intelligence is not aware of a specific biosafety incident at the Wuhan lab that caused a Covid-19 outbreak, according to the report. Several researchers there were ill in autumn of 2019, but their sickness could have been caused by a number of diseases and some of their symptoms were not consistent with Covid-19, it said. - BBC [2]
  • U.S. officials released an intelligence report Friday that rejected some points raised by those who argue COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab, instead reiterating that American spy agencies remain divided over how the pandemic began. - Associated Press [3]

So what do you think? Are the above quotes fairly summarized as: "The declassified report did not substantiate these allegations" ? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
We have a confusing situation here. Multiple pieces of information are involved. Some are verified, and others aren't. We have what appear to be leaks from the intel, reported by the WSJ and the Times. We also have the actual release, with a lot of redactions. Per the WSJ: Ben Hu, a scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who had done extensive laboratory research on how coronaviruses infect humans, was identified in U.S. intelligence reports as one of the researchers who became ill in November 2019 with symptoms that American officials said were consistent with either Covid-19 or a seasonal illness.
That much is verified, per WP:V. Public made additional claims, in particular the statement that Hu had Covid-19. That part is not verified. Hu's name was not in the intel release. It is therefore true that the intel release did not substantiate Hu's name. But the leaks did substantiate it. Saying that Hu's name wasn't substantiated by the intel release, without mentioning that it was supported by the leaks reported by the WSJ, flies in the face of WP:DUE. And the fact that the proposed text does not mention the WSJ or the Times stories is part of the problem. You don't go picking and choosing like that.
As for Hu's statement, the fact that he wrote it is verified. Fine. We can and should report that.
Similarly, from the Times: Investigators who scrutinised top-secret intercepted communications and scientific research believe Chinese scientists were running a covert project of dangerous experiments, which caused a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and started the Covid-19 outbreak. Obviously pertinent, and we should report it. According to the leak, these particular investigators believe LL. Obviously pertinent, and WP:DUE. The text I reverted doesn't mention it, just discusses the unsubstantiated reports about US intel, without mentioning the reliably sourced ones. Again, we shouldn't go picking and choosing in the way that the proposed text did. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Per the WSJ: Ben Hu, a scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who had done extensive laboratory research on how coronaviruses infect humans, was identified in U.S. intelligence reports as one of the researchers who became ill in November 2019 with symptoms that American officials said were consistent with either Covid-19 or a seasonal illness.
That much is verified, per WP:V.


And disputed in our other RSes. So fails WP:V.
Similarly, from the Times: Investigators who scrutinised top-secret intercepted communications and scientific research believe Chinese scientists were running a covert project of dangerous experiments, which caused a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and started the Covid-19 outbreak. Obviously pertinent, and we should report it.
I would dispute that we can rely on the Times as an RS in this topic area, given the nature of that piece, its anonymous unnamed sources, and its political biases. We have a discussion above that does not have a consensus in favor of its inclusion, so I would oppose including it on those grounds. We would need to go to RSN about it, is my guess. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Science does not dispute that US intel identified Hu. It says that the released report did not identify him. But that's a different statement. Indeed, the released report is silent on the question of whether or not Hu was one of the researchers whom intel identified as being sick. Similarly, the released report does not say that Chinese scientists were running a covert project of dangerous experiments that started Covid. But the leak does say that. The two statements are not in conflict.
I don't agree with you about the Times. I agree that it could make sense to take it up at WP:RSN. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Similarly, the released report does not say that Chinese scientists were running a covert project of dangerous experiments that started Covid. But the leak does say that. The two statements are not in conflict.
Actually on this particular point, the DNI's document directly contradicts. See this wording from the report (page 3):
Almost all IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered. Most agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not laboratory-adapted; some are unable to make a determination. All IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a biological weapon.
And then on page 4 the report says:
We continue to have no indication that the WIV’s pre-pandemic research holdings included SARSCoV-2 or a close progenitor, nor any direct evidence that a specific research-related incident occurred involving WIV personnel before the pandemic that could have caused the COVID pandemic....The IC has no information, however, indicating that any WIV genetic engineering work has involved SARS-CoV-2, a close progenitor, or a backbone virus that is closely-related enough to have been the source of the pandemic
Seems like a pretty direct refutation to me. If such information was known to the intelligence community (as those anonymous "sources" alleged), then the above statements would not be in the classified report.
What we have is verifiable statements from high quality sources (several) which say the report refuted some unverified allegations, and then the report itself which contradicts those allegations. And then on the other hand, we have some questionable sources which made some of these allegations. We don't have the supposed "leak". We only have non-RSes (and questionable sources) stating things that the leaker apparently "told them". I think FTN and RSN would have a field day on this one. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The phrase "direct evidence that a specific research-related incident" in your quote above is telling. The statement being made there is extremely limited, to the point where it is saying almost nothing. "Direct" and "specific" are both qualifiers. They could have evidence that a specific research-related incident and also direct evidence that a research-related incident, and the sentence would still be true. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
But the quoted portion doesn't just say that. It leads with "We continue to have no indication that the WIV’s pre-pandemic research holdings included SARSCoV-2 or a close progenitor": "no indication" is not qualified.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm still unclear on how the proposed phrasing doesn't cover all the bases (apart from the small details of word choice that are always debatable). There were unverified claims — that is, "unverified" in the sensible, everyday meaning of the word, rather than the Wikipedian argot, wherein something is "verifiable" when it appears in print. The declassified ODNI report did, indeed, not substantiate these claims. I could see a case for adjusting or perhaps slightly expanding the phrasing, but not for removing it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Whole thing is a muddled mess that i wish could just be ignored. A couple things to consider, these leaking "investigators" are almost certainly not among the analysts which created the IC assessment. That assessment had already contradicted some of their spin on the material: The IC assesses that information indicating that several WIV researchers reported symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in autumn 2019 is not diagnostic of the pandemic’s origins. so it's a little odd to expect the addendum to then confirm. What the news outlets presented as "new" information in the leaks was already either a well-known part of the assessment (lab safety) or irrelevant to the stated reasons some analysts assessed a lab related origin more likely (PLA involvement, November illnesses). News outlets are reading the latest release as some kind new self-contained report, when it's really more like addendum with additional details while restating parts of the prior assessments. We say In June 2023, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified their report..., but everything which follows had already been said back in August 2021. Seems like the news reporting we're doing in the article is mostly just obfuscating the actual IC assessment. fiveby(zero) 05:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
so it's a little odd to expect the addendum to then confirm
I think the entire thing about expecting the report to substantiate the allegations is based upon conspiracy theories about it being covered up. Public (substack) even said:
Next week, the Directorate of National Intelligence is expected to release previously classified material, which may include the names of the three WIV scientists who were the likely among the first to be sickened by SARS-CoV-2...A bill signed by President Biden earlier this year specifically called for the release of the names and roles of the sick researchers at the WIV, their symptoms and date of symptom onset, and whether these researchers had been involved with or exposed to coronavirus research.
And they are right, Section 3c of the COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023 specifically says that, if the names of the researchers are known, they shall (meaning by law, must) release such names if they are known to the DNI (the head of the intelligence community, in effect).
So it is quite important (and was underlined by our high quality RSes) that Congress compelled the DNI to release the names if they are known, and the DNI did not release any names. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
They didn't specify the symptoms either. According to the law, they were supposed to do that. Their actual report talks quite a bit about symptoms, to the point where it strains credulity to say they didn't know what the symptoms were. The situation parallels the situation with names, except in this case they've made it clear they do have additional information about what the symptoms were. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that because there was a statute with the wording shall the latest release demonstrates there is not some intelligence out there with these names? The relationship between the executive and legislative branches is a little more complicated than that. We're dealing with leakers, journalists, politicians, and admin officials and i don't think we can really expect them to be honest actors. Republicans are playing their roles in this little drama: angry tweets and letters, threatening to haul in admin officials for testimony, probably try to get some opinion columns written demanding the administration "come clean", etc. If some administration official is eventually made to answer for the report i imagine they will just say something along the lines of: we complied to the best of our ability given our interpretation of the statute and the president's authority, etc. All just a political football to be kicked around in order to score points against your opponents.
I do give some credit to the IC assessment, in that the stated reasoning in the reports is at least within spitting distance of how some analysts have assessed the intelligence. My contention is that given the assessment already stated the illnesses were not diagnostic all the reporting of the past weeks is a whole lot of nothing. This could be an article about the underlying science; MEDRS, SCIRS, FRINGE, and best sources are probably some tools that could make that happen. I suppose some kind of chronology of events and reporting, telling the story of lab leak might be valuable for some readers, but that's really just news reporting. I think the current article is splitting the difference between these to approaches and doesn't do either well. Most of the content and discussion get generated when some junk article makes a splash with headlines. fiveby(zero) 15:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I think we're overcomplicating this. IMO, the section should major on the key points of the intelligence report. Here's a good summary [4] . We can include the Ben Hu claims and counter claims as well if people want, but that shouldn't be the main focus IMO, as the intelligence report didn't go into who the infected people were. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

New source

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Medhi Hasan on lab leak.[5] Basically what we already know, but some nice summaries of how the IC stuff is a nothingburger and how the LL fanbois are becoming increasingly ridiculous. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Mehdi Hasan, a well-known scientist who works for the totally unbiased media outlet MSNBC (which didn't spend the entirety of the pandemic deifying Fauci and pharmaceutical companies). YumaDuplícito (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
An op-ed from a talk show host? Really? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

New article on public.substack.com

Latest comment: 1 year ago61 comments23 people in discussion

According to multiple U.S. government officials interviewed as part of a lengthy investigation by Public and Racket, the first people infected by the virus, “patients zero,” included Ben Hu, a researcher who led the WIV’s “gain-of-function” research on SARS-like coronaviruses, which increases the infectiousness of viruses.[6]

Although they are a substack, Public says they have a team of eight, and their corrections policy appears to be robust. I am not familiar with them and don't know how strong the evidence is to support what they say here: We correct our stories immediately upon discovering errors, whether of fact or opinion, both here on this website and on Twitter. The founders of Public have written at length about our own errors and why we made them. Our Corrections Policy thus involves not simply correcting the error but also seeking to understand and avoid the reasons for the error in the first place and sharing those lessons with our readers.[7] Adoring nanny (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but rather than having a lengthy debate about the reliability of Public, we could just wait for other sources to collaborate or disparage the claim. If Ben Hu were indeed patient zero, that would be an extremely important piece of evidence, so I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot more coverage about this topic, particularly with US COVID origin investigation documents about to be declassified. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Ben Hu were indeed patient zero, that would be an extremely important piece of evidence, so I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot more coverage about this topic
Yes, that is the heart of WP:ECREE. We need extraordinarily high quality sourcing for something like this, not the musings of a substack newsletter. And neither, for that matter, the musings of the FBI or the DoE or the DNI. We rely on expert assessments published in scholarly journal article reviews per WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Especially if we want to overturn longstanding consensus on such highly contentious topics. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
So your take, if I understand it correctly, is that academic newsletters (journals) almost entirely consisting of the musings of those from the amateur ranks (academics) somehow trump the work of professionals? Did I hear you right? - 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:7991:215A:FD55:90DA (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Substacks are not generally considered RSes. What history of corrections do they have, policy aside? What reputation do they have? How wide is their circulation? Are they professional journalists or hobbyists? What experts do they consult? This appears to be conspiracy-laden gobbledygook from my reading, not based on anything but anonymous "sources".
As far as I can tell, this is just repackaging of that old BS about three WIV researchers getting colds in the fall of 2019. Which we discuss and debunk already in the article.
OH wow, this is from Matt Taibbi? You mean that guy who fabricated an entire chapter of his book in 2000? That guy who went from tabloid to tabloid and was dropped by several publishers for putting satire and exaggeration in non-fiction books and articles? Not exactly a "reputation for fact-checking" that we expect in RSes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I don't know how strong the evidence is [should have added -- or isn't] to support their stated corrections policy. You may have noticed I did not make a WP:BOLD edit based on the story. My uncertainty about reliability is the reason. Can you provide links for the above statements about Taibbi? That said, Michael Shellenberger appears to be the main author. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The Matt Taibbi article goes into detail with sources. Basically in 2010 someone figured out there was a chapter in his coauthored 2000 book about Russian expats that was made up out of whole cloth and the publisher dropped him and disavowed.[8][9][10] Apparently a lot of this was because he was addicted to heroin at the time.[11] There's also the time he basically threatened a Vanity Fair interviewer and followed him after a bad interview.[12] Then with Twitter files lots of ppl pointed out blatant falsehoods and he said that was just the cost of doing lots of journalism.[13][14] Musk dropped him and he left Twitter altogether.[15][16] I think there are also instances of him repeatedly leaving NY tabloids after 1-2 years as well, after publishing questionable stories.[17][18][19] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that does not inspire confidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
There are 3 journalists: MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER, MATT TAIBBI, AND ALEX GUTENTAG + 3 “Patients zero” scientists researching SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology: Ben Hu, Ping Yu and Yan Zhu — Lab Leak 100%? Covid ‘Patients Zero’ Were WUHAN LAB Docs Doing GAIN-OF-FUNCTION: Shellenberger, The Hill − Please, try to curb your ad hominem attacks!--93.211.215.12 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hill.TV is not the same as The Hill (newspaper), any more than Fox & Friends is the same as Fox Broadcasting Company's various local TV affiliates (they are not). Different editorial standards, fact-checking, etc. I don't think we have a consensus on wikipedia that Hill.TV is reliable. Criticizing a journalist's reputation for fact-checking is part of evaluating the source, not an ad hominem fallacy.
See also: WP:RS:

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

  • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Additionally, this Rising piece appears to be simply reprinting/hosting the Public story. Not independently evaluating it, and thus would run into exactly the issue with WP:BNS: For significant claims about significant news events, wait for two or three independent reliable sources to source the material. If one source says that "the other reports...", the sources are not independent.
So right now, it appears we have 0 RSes covering this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
So glad this Wikipedian (of the website that considers the New York Times and Washington Post to be reliable sources despite them being wrong 80% of the time) can tell us all what a reliable source is. Hilarious. - 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:7991:215A:FD55:90DA (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink well the new York times is now confirming their reporting. 2601:1C0:717E:B870:ED11:A66B:DF5:325C (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
well the new York times is now confirming their reporting
Are they? This is an opinion piece, and therefore not reliable.
This, which is a reliable piece, does not confirm it at all. In fact, it says People briefed on the material say there is no smoking gun. and Intelligence agencies view the information about [the three sick workers] neutrally, arguing that they do not buttress the case for the lab leak or for natural transmission, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Unnamed officials briefed on the intelligence are nearly as bad as our three State Department investigators. Have no idea about The Messenger, but Goldstein is the only one i see commenting so far with unsurprisingly: “The amount of information we have is completely insufficient...[20] It seems they might have asked him about the loss of smell and lung scan assertions floating around. fiveby(zero) 17:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Applicable questions:
  • If this is true, why don't the Director of National Intelligence or National Intelligence Council find it convincing? Surely they would have access to such "classified" materials as the governing person and body over the intelligence community. Why didn't they include that in their previous summaries? What "new evidence" would have arisen?
  • If this is true, why did one of these supposed "anonymous sources in the government" say they were "100% convinced" it was a lab leak? How can anyone be 100% sure of something without contemporary lab testing of these supposed "patient zeros"?
  • Mechanistically, materially, what actual evidence could a US government official have that Ben Hu was patient zero? It would have to be contemporary documents, testing, etc. Which we have no evidence or reporting actually exists.
  • etc. etc. There are a lot of unanswered questions here and that's exactly why it's clearly a WP:ECREE situation, and doesn't raise anywhere near the level of inclusion yet.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The climax of this summer: "addicted to heroin at the time" is not ad hominem... seriously.--93.211.215.12 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
While I don't agree with all of the above arguments, I do agree that at this point, we don't have sufficient sourcing for this. A person who becomes convinced on any side of any debate runs a risk of falling victim to confirmation bias. In this case, I think accepting the public substack as WP:RS would be confirmation bias by me. Public's reporting may or may not be borne out at some later time, but that's immaterial. The crux of it is that Shibbolethink is correct that we don't have sufficient indicia of reliability here. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with characterization as click bait. The prose does not inspire confidence Public and Racket are the first publications to reveal the names of the three sick WIV workers and place them directly in the lab that collected and experimented with SARS-like viruses poised for human emergence. The journalists placed the 3 people directly in the lab? Sloppy writing indicates unreliable source. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The link under "at length" goes to Amazon for a book by one of the journalists. They even use their "Policy" and "Ethics" section to sell their own books. Wow. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

We should certainly start working towards adding content on this, there's also more reliable sources reporting this as well. Wish I had more time to do it myself, but I have other responsibilities too. Theheezy (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The author of that substack, Michael Shellenberger, is not a reliable source.[21] He in the past, often promotes shoddy theories like climate change denialism and UFOs with poor half truth reasoning. And yet seems many are thinking this is all a shut and close case because of a report from a journalist who denies climate change and think UFOs is real. Or at least strongly desire to believe it. But I would like to weight in and advise to avoid the FALLACY OF CERTAINTY. Nothing is even proven outright in his report. It's all circumstantial and on "maybes". Nothing conclusive. So thinking that it is all proven conclusively, is just fooling yourself. And if lab origin was now proven without a doubt, majority of scientists and most mainstream media will be stating that as a fact. But they don't because it's not proven beyond doubt. And an in-depth analysis of the virus, instead convince many scientists to still believe it's of natural origin because of the overwhelming evidence to support that. [22][23] And US gov knows that Intel and still rank a recent Lab origin report as being "low confidence". Which doesn't show they even believe such Intel strongly themselves and instead do not oppose the overwhelming scientific consensus that's it's NOT some engineered bioweapon.49.180.44.81 (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure that over time, the picture will become clearer. Theheezy (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
That's not acceptable proof of lab origin. To go hold to hope that lab origin can one day be proven. You instead need hard evidence and so far, I have yet to see any.[24] And I read Michael's blog. He is no scientist. You really need to listen to the real scientists and not those who discuss science with comedian Russel Brand (non scientist). There been so many times when scientists have been explaining in frustration that furin cleavage can be found naturally in many viruses. Yet such info gets filtered out by his many conspiracist fans. Michael's article is scientifically flawed when he presents furin cleavage sites as the ultimate proof that lab origin is indisputable. Despite so many scientists have already thoroughly explained how wrong that thinking is. Furin cleavage sites, however, exist in many other coronaviruses, such as feline coronaviruses and the virus that causes MERS. Because similar sequences for the cleavage site are found in other coronaviruses, “its presence is not at all suspicious or indicative of lab manipulation.[25] Wikipedia shouldn't take science news from someone who is a climate change denier and long time promoter of so many extreme conspiracy theories. Period.[26]49.180.44.81 (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Ben Hu led the chimera experiments at WIV.
  • Yu Ping wrote the key thesis on the 9 Mojiang viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2.
@Theheezy: there's also more reliable sources reporting this as well
Which ones are those? All I could find are various heavily biased conservative-leaning non-RSes which don't independently investigate, they just re-report what Public.substack said: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Please, try to curb your ad hominems for this one: The 3 “Patients zero” scientists were already in "reliable source" The Sunday Times:
These aren't sources we typically give much reliability in matters of science. The Times hasn't been regarded as very reliable in matters of politics either since Murdoch took over. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
That's a strange comment. Murdoch took over The Times in 1981! The Times is as reliable as it gets. Along with the FT, it's the least political/biased of the UK broadsheets. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
But just to clarify, as far as I can tell the Ben Hu claims haven't been properly reported in an RS (apart from where they've been sourced directly from Public), so can't go in the article. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No need to speculate or consider the sources, most likely will be more reporting in a couple days. fiveby(zero) 17:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
User "fiveby" wants to remind us Jun 19 2023 is 90 days following S.619, the "COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023" being signed into law by President Biden Mar 20 2023 which states: "Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall--
           (1) declassify any and all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)..."
If the US-security-apparatus indeed shows researchers at the WIV working with RaTG13 and related viruses were the first infected with COVID, this puts US funding at the epicenter of the pandemic. → Karolina Corin: U.S. funded discovery of close COVID-19 relative at the center of origins controversy, U.S. Right to Know, June 16, 2023. Our "Knowing" depends on the US-security-apparatus. --87.170.197.3 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The Sunday Times (and The Times) has been discussed for reliability numerous times and is considered [[WP:GREL]] by Wikipedia [[WP:RSPSOURCES]]. It is owned by Murdoch and is considered conservative or centre-right according to Wikipedia; but there is no note on [[WP:RSPSOURCES]] that the Sunday Times might be biased. Wikipedia refers to it as a [[quality press]]/broadsheet for its “seriousness.” During the Murdoch years it has had some bumps including publishing unproven and disproven theories on AIDS. But the consensus is it is GREL and apparently not considered biased so we should go with that unless there’s a specific reason to establish a particular article is unreliable for a particular reason(s). JustinReilly (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
"Generally reliable" does not mean "reliable for all purposes", particularly when there is evidence of untrustworthiness on a directly pertinent topic. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Looks like they released something, but can't yet find the report online. fiveby(zero) 16:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Now 404, NewsNation might have pulled that article, so who knows? fiveby(zero) 18:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Now released. fiveby(zero) 13:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hilariously this document does not support any of the schlock reported by these various subpar news outlets. The silence from advocates of the lab leak is deafening. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The key sentence in the report is "All agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection". Are you saying that the WSJ and the Times of London are subpar? As for Public, I agreed with you a week or two ago on that one, and still do. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I think we can be reasonably certain there are some intelligence documents out there mentioning the names of our three WIV researchers. Near as i can tell all the rest is just news outlets giving free reign to the opinion and speculation of our three State Department investigators along with such as Ebright and Quay, with nothing really new? Another thing to consider is that The Sunday Times, despite their obvious one-sided presentation, did not publish the names being shopped around. Should all be far below the level required for mentioning in the article.
The idea that this report somehow debunks or refutes anything is equally farcical. It was simply a summary of what's already been made public, written, classified then declassified in order for the DNI to comply with the COVID-19 Origin Act.
Near as i can tell there is nothing in the most recent reporting that should alter the assessment of our rational actors. That would require, as has been already said, the information to be declassified so it can be evaluated. fiveby(zero) 16:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I would say it only "debunks" or "refutes" in the sense that it does not substantiate what many lab leak proponents were saying it would substantiate. But you're right, it doesn't do so in a "positive rebuttal" sense.
I think the Science article from Jon Cohen is the only reason we should mention Ben Hu in the article, since it does mention the rumors, and categorical denial of them from Hu, who says he wasn't even sick in the fall of 2019, wasn't one of those three researchers, etc. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The Intercept earlier reported how that gain of function research, isn't seen as proof that the lab is behind Covid-19. Since none of the viruses listed in that US grant funded write-up are directly related to the virus that causes Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, and why the scientists unanimously told The Intercept that Wuhan experiments could not have directly sparked the pandemic.[34] And so unless the US government can confirm that their anonymous and speculative Intel is airtight and undeniable and officially state that it's a bioweapon, or scientists show some real proof. It's just original research and really politicised to claim the virus is a bioweapon at this stage of loose speculations and unbacked assumptions.49.181.87.71 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

And that last Intercept article is just shallowly reporting on what other papers are reporting. It is citing the Sunday Times and other outspoken individual bloggers, and writing what they are reporting. They doesn't actually say that they themselves believe the virus is a bioweapon. And even if they did, how could they ever say this when there is no actual official proof to confirm it? Only right wing media like Fox News or Sunday Times are too freely claiming (lab workers are infected with Covid-19) as a confirmed fact when it's really not. No professional impartial media are really claiming that Covid-19 is proven to be a bioweapon. They only can speculate but not claim it as a hard verified fact. 49.181.87.71 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
This A weaker version of this has now been confirmed by the WSJ.[35][36] Ben Hu, a scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who had done extensive laboratory research on how coronaviruses infect humans, was identified in U.S. intelligence reports as one of the researchers who became ill in November 2019 with symptoms that American officials said were consistent with either Covid-19 or a seasonal illness. None of the researchers died. and The researchers’ names were noted last week in an article in Public, which publishes on the Substack platform, and were independently confirmed by the Journal. For me, this moves it from "we shouldn't cover it as the sourcing sucks" to "we should cover it as the sourcing is good". Adoring nanny (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
"They became ill with Covid, or something else", not exactly confirmation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
You're right, the statement confirmed by the WSJ is weaker than the one made by Public. It's another reason not to treat Public as WP:RS. I've edited my note above. But the WSJ does still draw, at length, a connection with LL. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
It does not draw any connection to any theoretical lab leak. It says "These three researchers were sick in November 2019" which we already had sourcing for. The only thing this adds is that one of the three people was named "Ben Hu." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
But it does, repeatedly. The first one may fall under WP:HEADLINE. I'm unclear if this type of subheader is a headline or not, or how one would know. The others are squarely within the article. Identification of three who worked at Wuhan Institute of Virology fuels suspicion for proponents of lab-leak theory the three scientists “published on SARS-related coronavirus experiments done at inappropriately low biosafety settings that could have resulted in a laboratory infection.” and Hu is a leading researcher on coronaviruses who worked closely with Shi Zhengli, the leading expert on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. also Yu Ping, who also worked for the institute along with Zhu, is an expert on the geographic spread of coronaviruses and wrote a thesis that was the first to describe a new family of SARS-like coronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2. There's more about LL in there, too. I can't quote the full article per WP:COPYVIO. But the connection is repeated and obvious. They don't describe a specific LL scenario, sure. But saying it's not about LL is just not true. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
saying it's not about LL is just not true
That's not what I said. I said they cannot draw any connections. All they do is speculate and theorize that a connection could exist. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Probably 24 more hours before US govt declassifies this information. J mareeswaran (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree the sourcing is now good and think it should go in the article (obviously in the WSJ form of words not the Substack one). No harm in waiting a few days to see how it's reported elsewhere or if the US intelligence is declassified if that's what others want to do. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The sourcing was always good. WHAT in the WORLD are you talking about??? --2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:90EC:568A:19ED:47DE (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
It's really old news being rehashed again. Media does that every few months [37] because it sells. But nothing got proven here. Merely unconfirmed rumours about the lab workers. Should go without saying, but you shouldn't believe in unconfirmed spook rumours 100 percent as it's weak sauce. WSJ writing that it "fuels suspicion for proponents of lab-leak theory", isn't even confirmation that it's verified and they don't fully support Michael Shellenberger's extreme claims either on that such rumours can be full acceptable proof that the lab workers were patient Zero for Covid-19.49.180.84.109 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, the new information is the names of those who went to hospital. It's not being written about because it 'sells newspapers', it's being written about because it's an important new piece of information. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
A name doesn't change the fact that people can go to hospital for different reasons outside of Covid. My only point is that if one cares about integrity of Wikipedia, it's important not to give too much weight to an unconfirmed speculation particularly when it's vulnerable to being politicised and out of context. A necessary relevant point here is that when one say someone went to hospital. It sounds very serious in the West. But in China, do note they do things so differently there where unlike in the West where family doctors and clinics handle most outpatient services, most Chinese prefer to visit large public hospitals for their not so serious outpatient consultations instead. [38] In China’s health care system, people with ailments typically go to large hospitals in big cities and wait in long queues for hours to see a specialist rather than starting with a family doctor in their communities.[39] Such basic context is suspiciously not even mentioned in the US Intel reports. And for all you know, those lab workers could have non serious flu yet hyped up by the media and US gov. If lab workers were infected with a bioweapon and knew it. They should have protocols to quarantine themselves instead of going to a crowded public hospital. And the US Intel reports are not even transparent with how they managed to collect their info. So why I would urge caution in giving too much weight towards US Intel reports as they have not earned enough trust to be regarded as a high quality reliable source. Especially when the US Government themselves, who knows the entire details of the report, have graded their lab escape theory as (Low Confidence); meaning "scant, questionable, fragmented or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from this information."[40]49.180.84.109 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you make some good points. To me it still seems like a relevant piece of information, but I agree it doesn't prove anything and we should be careful to weight it appropriately and in line with the sources. I would be tempted to wait until the US intelligence is declassified and for further reporting. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
There are a number of comments here insisting that “this does not prove 100% that it was a lab leak.” Yes, obviously. We definitely would NOT say that in the article. And no one who has familiarity with editing Wikipedia would suggest that we would. No one who regularly edits this article would even think even in their own mind as opposed to writing it in the article that it proves a lab leak.
To those saying it adds nothing; I strongly disagree. The names of those hospitalized is significant- not as a smoking gun but as another brick in the wall, ie another of the many pieces of circumstantial evidence for a lab leak. When very extremely circumstantial evidence is offered for zoonosis, it is asserted as though it’s strong proof- eg no pandemic is known to have been caused by a lab leak (though I and others would argue there is a good circumstantial case that both Lyme disease and Ebola 2019 were lab leaks- Lyme bioengineered, Ebola 2019 not; NB I’m not arguing this go in the article), though SARS-1 is known to have escaped from labs 4 or more times, four of these lab leaks being from Chinese labs. JustinReilly (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
[63]49.180.84.109 argues that intel and other agencies that conclude with low confidence for lab leak should be thrown out. We should not, but if we did every agency and body that leaned toward zoonosis would be thrown out because they we ALL made with low confidence. The only agency report on the subject not made with low confidence was FBI’s which opined with moderated confidence that it was a lab leak.
Re Chinese hospitals: OK, in general good to bring up context, but I was under the impression that the 3 were hospitalized, and were not outpatients. I’m pretty sure that’s what RSs and all others have always said was reported. Do you have a source indicating they were just outpatient clinic doctor visits? If they were hospitalized, it could still be flu, but what is the chance that three of the worlds most prominent coronavirus researchers including on CoV Gain of Function who have published on that working at the worlds biggest and most prominent CoV lab all got a case of flu at the same time so bad they were hospitalized. I know flu is attributed with having a large mortality and serious morbidity burden, but just common sense, I am middle aged and have never known anyone personally or really heard from anyone connected by a couple of degrees of separation ever being hospitalized for flu. And that is just the beginning of the very convincing circumstantial case.
There’s a principle in the law- res Ipsa Loquitor- It speaks for itself- winning one $5K scratch off ticket is luck, two a coincidence, winning 50 $5K tickets in a row is “no evidence” according to many in science when the “no evidence” narrative benefits them. When that narrative does not the same evidence is characterized as “proof.” I’ve see it so many times in peer reviewed papers etc it’s ridiculous.
Point being there’s such a thing as common sense- we don’t need randomized controlled trials or any other evidence to prove that wearing a parachute when jumping out of a plane is a safe and effective intervention and is even probably a good idea despite the 100% utter and complete lack of “evidence” (by which they mean lack of RCTs, or sufficient RCTs or MetaAnalyses or sufficient number of sufficiently conclusive MetaAnalyses. Note I am not arguing that we say in the article that it’s likely that a lab leak occurred, I am talking about critically thinking about this and other controversies in medicine
and that there are extreme detriments to the guidelines and policies by which we decide content of articles especially on medicine. JustinReilly (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@JustinReilly: What you're saying seems to be pure OR. And it demonstrates why we dislike OR on Wikipedia. Even assuming all you say is true, there are two obvious fallacies with your reasoning. One if these three people were working closely together enough that they could allegedly all be infected with COVID-19, they could all have been infected with a particularly nasty influenza strain or whatever that made hospitalisation more likely. Two and probably more importantly is that hospitalisation doesn't mean they need hospital level care because of the severity of their symptoms. The whole point of this is that these people were either working in or at least associated enough with a lab working with coronaviruses that this alleged lab leak could happen. It may very well be they were hospitalised when they fell sick as a precaution so they could be properly isolated in an environment designed for that, just in case there was in fact a lab leak. At some stage tests showed it was simple influenza or something else and they would have been released, or maybe they were just isolated until there was confidence they were no longer infectious. Note also that while it's well accepted COVID-19 is significantly worse on average than the influenza, it often isn't bad enough in 45 year olds to require hospitalisation and there's no particular reason to think an early strain of COVID-19 would have been worse in this regard. So while it may be more likely that 3 middle age people were hospitalised for COVID-19, it's still not that likely especially in the absence of an existing massive outbreak (i.e. there were a lot of people who were not hospitalised) which poses questions of its own. So in reality your "this is so unlikely" has the similar problems even if it was COVID-19. To be clear, this is pure OR on my part as well, I'm not suggesting we add it anywhere. I'm simply using it to demonstrate why your OR is flawed. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@Justito: Your signature doesn't match your username so my ping failed. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The whole argument of the article on Substack was based or twisting on what the US report allegedly said. Yet I taken a deep look at the newly declassified US reports released yesterday. Report can be summed up as "No direct evidence COVID began in Wuhan lab", US intelligence report says. And that, "almost all" the agencies studying the issue assess the virus "was not genetically engineered". [41] I didn't want to say I told you so but yesterday's declassified US report said those several researchers were only "mildly" ill. As in not having life threatening serious cases that demands serious overnight stays at a hospital. And no indication that any of these researchers were hospitalized because of the symptoms consistent with Covid-19. Instead "one researcher may have been hospitalized in this time frame for treatment of a non-respiratory medical condition." Contrary to all that sensationalised media and Substack newsletter hype in the past weeks, US intelligence report shows nothing new to support lab leak, but further clarifies, what they had omitted all this time, that those hospitalized researchers" symptoms were not diagnostic of COVID-19. (And such declassified info should probably be updated into wikipedia article); While several Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers “fell mildly ill in Fall 2019,” the report acknowledges, “they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with COVID-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to COVID-19.” The excerpt above is directly from page 6 of yesterday's US declassified intel report. [42]49.180.178.41 (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, just wanted to add for
completeness, that the DNI report also said that some of the sick researchers had illness consistent with, but not necessarily diagnostic of, COVID- ie some of them could have had COVID but we don’t know if any did. JustinReilly (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely" listed at Miscellany for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

  The essay User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely has been listed at Miscellany for deletion to determine whether its use and function meets the essay guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this essay at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached. The void century 18:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here. I try to keep an eye out for all this discussions, but I might miss it if it were not for posts like yours. Theheezy (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thanks! JustinReilly (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

no "direct" evidence

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Note Justito has been indef'd, so no explanation will be forthcoming. Bon courage (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

@Justito, I'd like to question these edits. You made the following changes:

  • no evidence -> no direct evidence
  • particularly those alleging genome engineering -> particularly some alleging genome engineering

Can you explain your reasoning? The void century 19:42, 9 July 2023 (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.

WTW:Theory

Latest comment: 1 year ago20 comments14 people in discussion

Folks, how is this page labeled a "theory" in its title? In the colloquial sense it is, but in the scientific sense it is not a theory. This is a confusing title to give this article. At best it is a hypothesis. It is marginally better described as a "proposal" or a "speculation".

Perhaps there are media sources which use the term "theory" loosely. But since we have at least some deference to the scientific community at Wikipedia, I'm sure there is a better word to use than "theory" in this article.

jps (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

On a technical level I agree with you, the use of theory here is extremely loose but I'm struggling to come up with a better title... Best I've got is "COVID-19 lab leak theories" which solves the problem of people thinking that there is somehow one unified theory of lab leak or whatever and not a whole gaggle of competing, complementary, and contradictory ideas. Doesn't address the technical inaccuracy though... But on the other hand the conspiracy theories should not be legitimized as scientific hypotheses and theories (at least colloquially) covers both the stuff that comes from real experts/academics and the more loony stuff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
"Lab leak proposals", then would be a fairly neutral description of this hodge-podge, no? Or just get rid of the final word entirely? "COVID-19 lab leak" is a pretty clear catch-all these days. jps (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
"Lab Leak Theory" is the WP:COMMONNAME.[43][44][45] Adoring nanny (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@ජපස agreed. I thought my footnote was a good compromise between WP:COMMONNAME and clarity, but maybe I was mistaken given that the article also covers conspiracy theories. The void century 22:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I think “Lab Leak Theories,” is the best but “Lab Leak Theory” is fine too. I use “hypothesis/es” myself, but agree “Theory/ies” is a better title.
“COVID-19 Lab Leak,” “Lab Leak Proposal” and “…Speculation” are are non-contenders IMHO. JustinReilly (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
my favorite so far would be "COVID-19 lab leak idea" or "COVID-19 lab leak" from a most widely-colloquially-used sense. "Idea" is most widely used in the scientific literature in our best available sources: e.g. Recent debate has coalesced around two competing ideas: a ‘‘laboratory escape’’ scenario and zoonotic emergence. in The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This has been discussed before at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 2#Requested move 26 July 2021. If I recall correctly, there was some debate about whether a theory or a hypothesis conveys more certainty/reliability. I always thought that a theory was firmer than a hypothesis, but I think some people believe the opposite. There may be regional variations of English at play. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
"Theory" as a word has way too many connotations and variations of definition for it to be appropriate in this context. The problem is, of course, that these variations can be used to promote a lot of misconceptions and outright untruths. I'm reminded of Evolution is just a theory, for example. jps (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Some years ago, there was a big gigantic argument about whether it should be called the "theory" or the "hypothesis", and it went on and on, round and round, until everybody got out of breath and fell over, and what happened was that it ended up being called the "theory". At the time, I was opposed to this, and I guess I still am (a "hypothesis" is generally conjecture that hasn't been conclusively validated, whereas a "theory" is generally pretty well settled). But I do not think that it matters a whole lot at this point. A lot of the arguments for and against each position were based on contingent political issues (many of them so minor as to have been completely forgotten by now), as has been the case for many things throughout history. Like many things, it is probably just best to accept that the official thing everyone agrees on will be slightly off. For example, the United States celebrates the anniversary of its independence on July 4, whereas the actual declaration was made on July 2 — good luck getting everyone to change that. jp×g 02:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    • No doubt there is tension between WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:LABEL, so I'll just say here that Wikipedia is in the unique position to be able to shape official things when they are new-ish like this. I don't get the impression that many mainstream publications that have used the "theory" label are particularly attached to it as such. They probably did not do a lot of worrying about it, unlike us. Now, I don't think we need to go around righting great wrongs, of course, but I also think that we have an opportunity here to gain some precision with terminology here in a way that may help inform curious readers who come to this page hoping to find out facts of the matter. I think we all agree that the word "theory" isn't quite right. Hell, maybe nothing is quite right. But if there is something that can be done that is more right, let's do that. jps (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
      • I've long favored this article as placing 'lab leak' correctly within scientific inquiry, but don't know if it would help with terminology. "So-called lab-leak hypothesis", "ostensible lab-leak hypothesis" and "conspiratorial cognition"; so 'hypothesis' also not quite right. There's an RfC ruling of 'no consensus' for 'conspiracy theory', but i don't think that prevents getting as right as possible in the lead and content what you can't in the title. Keeping as 'theory' might simplify the job and help distinguish those putting forth a 'theory' without evidence and those expressing legitimate uncertainty. fiveby(zero) 18:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The scientific community uses 'theory' and i think beyond colloquial sense. You have put this forth as a 'theory' and yet there is no evidence. In a way an effort to educate us as to just the point you are making. Lab leak proponents are not constructing and then testing a hypothesis, they are claiming evidence for and trying to turn legitimate scientific uncertainty into 'likely'. I favored The void century's approach of trying to explain this and then move on to discussion in terms of evidence.
Does 'hypothesis' then mischaracterize what's going on and give too much credit? Does it change the scope of the article? Consider Ian Lipkin's "...a theory of his own, pointing to another Wuhan laboratory - run by the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control... That's obviously 'theory' in the sense of: this might be a viable research related origin scenario (field collection) that can't yet be excluded, and maybe indistinguishable from other scenarios. There are indications this might be the DOE's reason for their low-confidence assessment. We currently roll that up into 'lab leak' vs. 'natural zoonosis', but i have no clue at all whether it's either. It looks to me like he is keeping his eye on the ball, his job: "relentless focus on the origins of the virus has obscured the primary objective: preventing future pandemics."
So if it's 'hypothesis' do we need to change from what should be fairly simple description: a theory without supporting evidence; to discussing viable scenarios? Given the current approach to the article content, I don't know how we could include something such as Lipkin's field collection scenario without ending up just feeding the conspiracy theory. fiveby(zero) 16:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Even "one or the other" is misleading without more context. We know where the natural reservoir is, even when we don't always successfully trace the adaptation path. —PaleoNeonate – 02:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong view on theory vs. hypothesis. Hypothesis seems more accurate.
  • Perhaps just me, but "COVID-19 lab leak", to my ears, sounds like a historical event that definitely happened rather than a hypothesis about something that may or may not have happened. I suppose it's also possible it could get confused with the the 2021 incident described here.
  • Again, perhaps just me, but lab leak proposal sounds to me like someone is proposing to leak COVID-19 from a lab :).
PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I would support moving the article to "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theories", because that's what this article is about. The non-conspiracy stuff can go into the Investigations article. Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • This debate is a distraction, it really meets the first half of the definition, "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe", and we can gather evidence to support the theory. What we really should be discussing is recently released documents showing top scientists conspiring to suppress discussion of the lab leak, while simultaneously acknowledging it was highly likely. High Tinker (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස: Returning to the original question, in a scientific sense, either "postulate" or "premise" might be more appropriate wording. "Thesis" might even be more correct, but the meaning may not be as well understood by the casual reader. Mojoworker (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

None of those words seem correct. It's at best an "idea" or "proposal". jps (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and various moves have already been discussed, see the archives, has anything new come to light that would necessitate reopening this issue? High Tinker (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

July 11, 2023 publication

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I don't know if this should be added or not, but I wanted to make everyone here aware of its existence so they could offer their opinions on whether or not it is notable and relevant enough to include.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023.07.11-SSCP-Interim-Staff-Report-Re.-Proximal-Origin_FINAL.pdf

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty solid accounting of Fauci and Collins's participation in the lab leak coverup, so yeah I'd say it's relevant. Further, it bolsters the reliability of this page which is severely lacking in credible sourcing. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:2D54:A14E:D479:4DF7 (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
See above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific with "above"? High Tinker (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Its being discussed above in another thread, it is unhelpful to have to watch two or three threads on the same topic. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. My apologies for the duplicate. And thanks to everyone else who did comment. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_26&oldid=1235564551"