Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

Secondary coverage of expert survey

Here's secondary RS news coverage of the expert survey.

Enserink, Martin (February 6, 2024). "Virologists and epidemiologists back natural origin for COVID-19, survey suggests". Science. Retrieved January 31, 2025.

  1. "On average, respondents assigned a 77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario, and 2% to the “other” category. One-quarter of respondents seemed to be very sure about a zoonotic origin, giving it a probability between 96% and 100%."
  2. "Only 12% of respondents said no further studies are necessary. Thirty-seven percent said “some” additional research is needed, and more than half—including 43% of virologists—said studies should continue because “major gaps” remain in the investigations done so far."

This coverage actually breaks things down in a more useful way.

  • the majority of scientists favor natural zoonosis but are not certain.
  • "One-quarter of respondents seemed to be very sure about a zoonotic origin"
  • lab leak is another significant minority view, held by one fifth of respondents.

In other words, Wikipedia agrees with the experts that natural zoonosis was the most likely origin, but Wikipedia's level of certainty is actually a minority view. - Palpable (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason you've opened another section for the same survey? the last comment in the other section was only four days ago, so there's no need to split the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
This is a different and better source. The other section has become a back and forth and I assume most people are no longer reading it. - Palpable (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry your right, different survey. I was caught because of how similar the results and the conclusion are. To paraphrase "Most experts do not believe that the virus originated in a lab leak", which the article captures quite well. Lab leak is the minority scientific view, most experts think the virus is the result of zoonosis, and there are many silly conspiracy theories out there -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
You're correct that it's the same survey! What's different is the reliable secondary news coverage and that it breaks things out by level of confidence a little differently.
My sense is that the current article is considerably more sure of itself than the scientists in the survey, e.g. "misplaced suspicion" in the lead expresses no uncertainty so it is a minority opinion. - Palpable (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
And we back to the same repeated arguments. I don't believe that the article has any 'misplaced suspicion', but correctly contextualises the theory as a minority review. The exact position that the article you mentioned also handles it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
"Misplaced suspicion", as used in the lead, is a dispositive statement implying confidence greater than 95% in natural zoonosis. That is a minority scientific viewpoint.
I'm not sure what to make of the recent arguments here that the article conveys a 20% likelihood of lab leak now. - Palpable (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
The only time that "Misplaced suspicion" is used is in relation to conspiracy theories, e.g. people with misplaced suspicions have created conspiracy theories. That wording has nothing to do with the minority view, but the nonsense that people have made up about that minority view.
Is the zoonosis 95% more likely than one of the conspiracy theories? Yes, and the lab leak is also 95% more likely than the conspiracy theories. Does discussion of the conspiracy theories say that one theory is more likely than the other? Not in the slightest.
The paragraph on conspiracy theories is going to stay because the conspiracy theories are well documented in reliable sources, and when discussing the conspiracy theories they will be handled as those reliable sources handle them. Discussing the conspiracy theories is not the same as saying the theory of a lab leak is itself a conspiracy theory. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia's level of certainty is actually a minority view - that might be true of (some) Wikipedia editors but having reviewed the text of this article and Origins of SARS-CoV-2, I don't think our article text affords any certainty - it seems about as confident as the scientists surveyed, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the tone of the article does not match the opinions of experts at this point. Ymerazu (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
The summary of the source is "Most respondents in a global survey of experts said it was unlikely the COVID-19 pandemic originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology." The Wikipedia article states this well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Agree that the article doesn't reflect the expert survey. Some examples just from the lead: a) the article calls the theory "highly controversial" b) "available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats" implies that experts have little doubt about the origin of COVID (whilst the survey suggests experts place a 21% probability on a lab leak scenario), c) we start discussing conspiracy theories in only the second paragraph of the article implying that these are very important part of the lab leak discourse, when in fact it's a plausible scenario assigned a significant probability by experts (according to the survey). PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't think anybody dissents from a bat origin, other than the engineered-from-scratch crowd, and they are out-and-out cranks. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes true sorry meant to include the second part of the sentence "and spread to humans from infected wild animals, functioning as an intermediate host, at the Huanan Seafood Market" PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Well we follow the sources on that, rather well. Bon courage (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for exploring it so clearly. A reasonable person would conclude that the lead implies the lab leak is a conspiracy theory, which I think is the intent and to the satisfaction of some other users here. I think we should not be too discouraged that a lot of the commenters here think that the lead is unbiased in its present state. The best thing is probably to produce and consider a rewrite or some edits that reflect the situation better. As you say, it is not at all clear from the lead that 20% of scientists surveyed consider a leak to be the most viable theory. Ymerazu (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Well, it the nexus of a load of conspiracy theories as our article explains. 20% of scientists is not really significant. Scientists can believe all sorts of tosh. What matters here is the reliable published sources. Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
One consequence of having an article that discusses both conspiracy theories and an established and significant minority scientific viewpoint is that the two topics clash with each other. Ymerazu (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Legitimate views about SCV2 origin are at Origin of SARS-CoV-2, not here. Bon courage (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Thankfully, editor consensus does not agree with you. Unfortunately for our readers, the page does not reflect consensus. Ymerazu (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
The whole idea of voting on what happened is stupid anyway, but... there was a 15% response rate. So, 85% possibly thought, "lab leak? What bollocks! I have better things to do" and binned the missive. All you can say about the result is not "n percent of all experts say X" but "n percent of those experts that find the question interesting say X". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's generally assumed that such statistics only represent the views of the people who actually responded; I don't think any special disclaimer clarifying that is necessary. I don't presume Oral B ads are claiming they personally interviewed all 200,000 dentists in the US and exactly 180,000 of them supported their toothpaste.
Anecdotally, response rates for survey polls over broad fields tend to have very low response rates in general. At least in my specialty, social sciences, you would be ecstatic to have response rates greater than 10%. I don't think a response rate of 15% adds or detracts from the reliability of the poll. (And the implied logic that people who didn't respond could have done so because they thought the answer was so obvious and not worth their time could just as easily be applied in the reverse direction, it's conjecture.) BabbleOnto (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
What you think about this poll is not relevant. Science is not done by polling scientists, period. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Science is also not done by blatant conjecture. 2601:18F:800:EE00:7EB2:1CFC:41CD:4178 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
This is not a forum. My statement was a refutation of the previous contribution, while your statement has no connection to anything here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Can you describe scientific consensus in a way that is not effectively a poll of subject matter experts, or is it that too stupid? Your argument against the poll was pure conjecture and it’s not good for determining what sources should or should not be used. 2601:18F:800:EE00:9919:D1D5:757A:788B (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Secondary expert coverage of the totality of the results of scientific studies on the subject, of course.
The opinion of scientists is something the scientific methodology treats as a source of bias and actively strives to prevent from influencing the result of studies by double-blinding. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh good lord now you’re just spewing eloquent bullshit. There does not exist a single citable source for that. You look it up in a text book, or a professional society you’ll see the words like, debate, opinion, evidence. No one has ever, in the history of humanity used a double blind study to reach scientific consensus. 2601:18F:800:EE00:9919:D1D5:757A:788B (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I never said that it works like that. I only explained to you that consensus has nothing to do with opinion but with results, and that opinion is seen as a hindrance and a source of error. But this is drifting too far from improving the article. So, I will not respond to your next strawman. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - the editorial position of this Wikipedia article should reflect the consensus of scientists as published in peer-reviewed academic journal articles. I've read parts of this report and the Science coverage provided above, and it is interesting. But I strongly object to editors attempting to use the poll to divert this article Wikipedia article away from scientific consensus. -Darouet (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
    The consensus of the so-preconized “peer-reviewed academic journal articles” (PRAJA) seems to still be on a conjectural stage. A lab leak is considered “unlikely” but without any concrete evidence except for far-fetched probabilistic analyses based on previous spillover events which could be statistically independent of this current one. The reason why such references decided to jump the gun and make almost-peremptory statements in their titles and abstracts based on no categorical evidence would surely puzzle someone ignoring the political context and pressure around this matter. In my opinion, such context does not act in favor of the reliability of PRAJA, and considering only this kind of reference to extract a consensus could potentially lead to bias. 2804:7F4:323D:3A18:91E2:D9EB:9E76:D7C4 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
    It's not our job to sleuth for what "Truly™" is, especially if it means looking a crappy sources. Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as found in the WP:BESTSOURCES. That's it. Bon courage (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
    That would be a wonderful world to live in. Wouldn't it? And it's a wonderful goal. But saying wikipedia uses the "best sources" and the wikipedia "reflects that" Is a little bit high on our own supply. We strive to, we do. But man are there a lot of gharbage tabloid sources this website pays far too much heed to. 24.63.3.107 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
    If that is supposed to be reasoning in favor of using the poll (which, from the context of the discussion, it seems to be), the reasoning part is missing. If it is not supposed to be reasoning in favor of using the poll, then what is it reasoning for? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
    Wikipedia's article on scientific consensus describes it as the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time. Publications inform the consensus of scientists, they don't define it.
    A confidential systematic survey of experts is a direct attempt to measure consensus. It would be nice to have a survey that had been published in a peer reviewed journal, but at this time this is the best available survey of scientific consensus on the subject. Usually this study is cited in arguments against lab leak for what it's worth. - Palpable (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
    Agree: The article no longer reflects the current state of scientific knowledge and scientists. The tone of the article is that many want the laboratory hypothesis to be branded as a conspiracy theory - without rigorous evidence, but probably for political reasons. This is contrary to neutrality and balance. "Belief" (which appears several times in the article) is not yet evidence of anything. We should mention this explicitly. Empiricus (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
    no longer reflects Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on your opinion. (Remember that one of the jobs of secret services is disinformation. They are not reliable sources.) The scientific sources about facts (as opposed to opinions) have not changed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
You've falsely assumed that the "experts" for investigating a lab leak are people who are experts in fields that are tangentially related to investigating a lab leak. One could more effectively argue that intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies are closer to experts on this matter than epidemiologists and virologists, whose training has absolutely nothing to do with investigating a lab leak, because all of their training assumes a natural origin.
Clearly this article is egregiously flawed and is frankly an embarrassment for wikipedia and every editor involved with this page. 2601:547:1903:2200:E9E8:4137:ECA1:3F18 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
They assumed no such thing. Experts can compare genomes and draw conclusions from those. Intelligence agencies, on the other hand, do whatever their boss tells them, including spread disinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, from a mathematical ans statistical point of view, the laboratory hypothesis has the highest probability, as recently investigated by a study (100 pages).Levin, Andrew T. A Bayesian Assessment of the Origins of COVID-19 using Spatiotemporal and Zoonotic Data. No. w33428. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2025. "The overall odds ratio is 14,900:1, indicating overwhelming evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the pandemic resulted from an accidental lab leak. This conclusion is robust to alternative specifications of the detailed statistical analysis." --Empiricus (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that actually reliable sources in the field of epidemiology regard Levin's conclusions as spurious and off-piste. Which is presumably why they were published (and presumably peer-reviewed) by economists, not by scientists. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
He is also a mathematician who tested the hypotheses using mathematical methods. Prove the opposite. Empiricus (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Why would I have to prove the opposite? The origin of a virus is primarily in the domain of biology, not economics or statistics. Further, any mathematical model of the origin of Covid (Bayesian or otherwise) is completely dependent on how it is specified in relation to actual biological phenomena - otherwise we are in "dancing on the head of a pin" territory. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
See point 2 of the consensus. There's no consensus that the origin of the virus is a biomedical issue, and thus no authoritative reason only biology journals/studies can be used as sources on it. BabbleOnto (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
This isn't about consensus two, but proper source selection. A virologists wouldn't be used as a source in an article about economics, as it's outside of their field of expertise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Consensus 2 is precisely about source selection. Your suggestion that a mathematical model can't be used when discussing the lab leak theory is precisely the thing that Consensus 2 was designed to address. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Consenus on this talk page don't magically overrule basic principles, sources from experts in the field of study are better sources than those from outside the field. This is basic source selection. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The very purpose of a consensus point is to overrule otherwise basic principles... for example consensus point 9 overrules the basic principle that an article can go through the requested moves process, and consensus point 3 overrules the basic principle that peer-reviewed scientific journal articles are acceptable sources, by specifying that two specific authors should not be cited. BabbleOnto (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
No, see WP:CONLOCAL. Local consensus cannot override policy. In fact, consensus cannot override core policy at all (see WP:COPO.) WP:V is core policy, so we're always bound to use the best available sources. Consensuses can determine decision points within basic policy (eg. determining whether a particular source is reliable; obviously not all authors are automatically reliable) but it can't just let us ignore it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting we override WP:V. The consensus point was to not designate this question WP:MEDRS. Therefore, standard WP:RS rules apply, and scientific articles are best sources. Unless there is a core policy that this topic is MEDRS (there is not) then this is not overriding a core policy. BabbleOnto (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
MEDRS is a much more narrow and specific question than WP:BESTSOURCES; obviously BESTSOURCES still applies, which means that the best sources are still those with the most relevant expertise. An opinion from an academic speaking outside their area of expertise remains a low-quality source for this topic and cannot be used when contradicted by higher-quality sources or to eg. support exceptional claims; all that consensus 2 establishes is that it is not strictly forbidden. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
This silly aside can be closed down, as they are now topic banned from COVID19. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh almost like in China, where other COVID 19 narratives are banned. Today it is actually clear that the secret services had the best sources regarding the origin, not only in the USA, Germany, but also in Great Britain - very early on. This is one interessting example. Empiricus (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Noone is being silenced here for their opinions only their behaviour, specifically WP:SEALIONING in this case. As to the Daily Mail it's as reliable as that bloke who stands on the street corner yelling at passersby. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Lab leak is not a theory anymore than bat soup zoonotic spillover is a theory

WP:NOTFORUM. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2025 (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.

There is no proof SARS COV 2 is a lab leak. Sure, I'll give you that. There is equally no proof SARS COV 2 came from bats the way 229E, OC43, HKU1, NL63 did in the distant past. It has never been isolated in a wild animal. It is not endemic in any bat population. Therefore, lab leak is not a theory anymore than bat soup zoonotic spillover is a theory. Both lab leak and bat soup are unfounded hypothesis with no proof whatsover. 216.165.208.39 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Being forcibly reminded of why we had a one year ban on page renaming discussions. Another one may be due. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
There is no proof that you exist. There is no way to prove anything in the natural sciences, only the compilation of evidence. When there is enough evidence supporting an hypothesis then we call it a theory. As new evidence arrives we need to reevaluate what is a theory. Proof is for Logic and Mathematics. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
The Lancet Letter Covid 19 decreased the research for the hypothese of the lab leak theory in the early days of the pandemic in 2020 EilertBorchert (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2025 (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.

CIA says it is from a lab leak.

Information recently added to the article; discussion about the inclusion of this information is ongoing at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Protected edit request on 19 March 2025 (CIA Assessment). 2804:18:963:B9BA:B586:DD28:A457:B5B (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2025 (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.

Why hasn't this page been updated with the information from January 2025 that the CIA now says COVID most likely originated from a lab leak. This origin of Covid 19 is also the conclusion of the FBI. 156.47.130.181 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussions on this page to get your answer. --McSly (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
The editors are plagued by an anti-scientific assumption that the "experts" on a lab leak investigation are the people who investigate naturally occurring epidemics. That is to say, an epidemiologist's training assumes natural origin. They also happen to have a lot to lose if the lab leak theory turns out to be correct.
In reality, there are clearly no experts on this subject, because there's no way to empirically validate that epidemiologists can correctly identify lab leaks vs zoonotic origins for diseases more accurately than people in other fields can. In particular, the obvious question that the editors falsely presume to know the answer to is whether intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies should be considered more qualified to analyze the probability of a lab leak compared to epidemiologists. I would argue that they are, but regardless, this is clearly a matter of opinion. By failing to recognize this, the editors have decided that their own opinions on the validity of the lab leak are to be considered the prevailing opinion of experts by arbitrarily deciding who the experts are. 2601:547:1903:2200:E9E8:4137:ECA1:3F18 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
We need sources nonetheless. An Alina Chan for every Peter Daszak would be nice. Alexpl (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
@2601:547:1903:2200:E9E8:4137:ECA1:3F18 This WP:OR argument seems strictly parallel to arguing that Moon landing conspiracy theorists are more qualified to assess the likelihood of the Moon landing conspiracy theory (vs. an actual human landing) than are astrophysicists and aerospace engineers. I find it difficult to extend much rope to such an arguments and, in any case, the IP and others sharing their views have signally failed any support for the assertion that these intelligence agencies are reliable in their assertions about pandemic origins. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Are you really comparing the moon landing conspiracy to the lab leak theory? Wait, has anything closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13/BANAL been found in live animals in nature? Ah, I see. In that case, let’s tone down a bit on the peremptoriness and wobbly analogies. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:7401:D8A4:9606:FD74 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
@2804:7F4:323D:387D:7401:D8A4:9606:FD74 To answer your question, I was responding to the logic of your argument, not the facts of the case. This logic (that experts in conspiracies can evaluate the conspiracy better because it's a conspiracy theory) is the same in both cases. Newimpartial (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
@Newimpartial Your argument is based on the fact that the lab leak theory is a conspiracy as absurd as the moon landing one, and that one theory can be just as easily tested and validated as the other. Decades have passed since man landed on the moon, there is plenty of evidence that it indeed happened and the scientific community had no reputation or funding to lose had they concluded instead that it was a hoax. Therefore, I don’t see the logic as being equivalent. I also note that the lab leak theory being or not a conspiracy is not settled matter in academic circles. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:F521:7C83:B788:FC48 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
This is beginning to deviate away from discussion of article improvement and into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Regardless we've been over this a multitude of times; the CIA are not epidemologists or virologists but are rather intelligence operatives who have, for decades, specialized in propaganda to counter the geopolitical rivals of the United States. As such they're not particularly trustworthy next to, you know, scientific experts. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
@2804:7F4:323D:387D:F521:7C83:B788:FC48 No, IP, my argument is not based on assuming that the two conspiracy theories are equally absurd. At the same time, I would also point out that your major supporting premise is precisely wrong - I don't think there is much evidence for the moon landing from a scientific community (that) had no reputation or funding to lose had they concluded instead that it was a hoax. I think you will find that the evidence for the moon landing comes almost entirely from scientists and engineers who had a good deal of reputation or funding to lose - if anything, even more so than the epidemiological community weighing in on Covid-19. I am not presenting this as either an argument that the moon landing was faked (!) or that the basis with which the two conspiracy theories can be debunked is similar. What I am saying is that, if you apply to the moon landing the same degree of skepticism about COI that conspiracy theorists on this page apply to Covid, the supporting evidence for the moon landing becomes similarly weak - as is the nature of conspiracy theories in general.
Anyway, as I have said elsewhere on this page, the key questions about the lab leak hypothesis from a scientific standpoint are: (1) could Covid-19 have originated zoonotically, (2) is there evidence that human intervention (like GOF research) was involved in Covid origins, and (3) does evidence exist that Covid-19 was released from a lab. The consensus explanations within scientific communities are (1) yes, (2) no, and (3) no. Intelligence communities don't really disagree about (1), but they are more divided about (2) and (3). There is a contrarian scientific position - which I'd qualify as a FRINGE view - that raises obections to the consensus view on all three of these questions in ways that mirrors the intelligence community's range of assessments (of 2 and 3).
So as a Wikipedia editor, I conclude that intelligence community estimations should not change in any way our assessment of RS scientific perspectives, since the former are largely determined by factors other than scientific plausibility. It would be like basing geology articles on intelligence community estimates of rare earth resources rather than actual data provided by geologists. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Per the survey cited above, roughly 20% of experts believe in some sort of lab leak, 55% consider it plausible but less likely than natural zoonosis, and only 25% consider natural zoonosis to be proven.
The fraction of scientists who are sure we landed on the moon is presumably more than 99%. See the difference? - Palpable (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Thats an interesting survey and the article certainly doesn't reflect the breakdown in expert opinion. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
@Palpable to answer your question: yes, I see the difference. I was arguing specifically about the relevance of intelligence community assessments, which is the topic of this section. How to characterize the scientific community's consensus around Covid origins is a different question. Intelligence community assessments do not become more or less relevant in themselves depending on the results one gets when polling scientists. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
The word "presumably" is carrying a lot of weight here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I think I disagree with almost everything written here. Above all, with the fact that this editor seems to think that concluding for the moon landing hoax would be more harmful to scientists than concluding for the lab leak theory. Maybe they live in another planet and are not aware of how many deaths this pandemic (which isn’t over yet) has caused and the negative impact it had on the lives of virtually everyone around the globe. Surely, if a lab leak is later found to have caused this pandemic, the blame for all of these deaths and suffering will be put on the scientific community (and not just on a particular group, lab or country, because research on this level is done with funding from various countries by researchers distributed in many parts of the world, and above all with unrealistic demands for publications and “scientific discoveries” that are ever increasing and enforced by basically every academic institution without focusing enough on giving proper conditions for research to be conducted, adequate monitoring to see if those conditions are met, and finally prioritizing quantity of research work over quality). Anyway, I agree with Simonm223 that this is deviating from the main point raised by 156.47.130.181, which is already being addressed below, so I will not be continuing this argument and I also suggest someone else hats it if they see it fit. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:2D47:6910:4FE1:85BB (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
@2804:7F4:323D:387D:2D47:6910:4FE1:85BB I would just point out that this (novel) argument seems to imply that all virologists are COI on this issue because if the lab leak were the actual origin, it would discredit all virology. I would point out in reply that, if the moon landing conspiracy theory were the actual explanation for the Apollo program claims, it would discredit NASA, astrophysics, and the aerospace sector in much the same way (and would require a much greater degree of malfeasance in the explanation that would be required of virologists in the lab leak scenario).
But this isn't the way COI is understood on Wikipedia: the criterion is applied to specific sources to determine if there is an individual interest in self-serving statements. By the standard the IP is using, which is much broader, any NASA employee, aerospace engineer or astrophysicist in the 1970s had IMO a much stronger self-interest in the moon landing constancy theory being false than the virologists discussed on this page have in the lab leak hypothesis being false.
Which is all rather besides the point, because we simply do not employ this kind of conspiracy thinking in assessing conspiracy theories on enwiki. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
What do they have to lose if it’s correct? 2600:4040:5E5F:BA00:4C92:2421:24A6:21E2 (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
@2600:4040:5E5F:BA00:4C92:2421:24A6:21E2 To answer your question: depending on the individual scientist or engineer - funding for their research, employment/academic tenure, public disgrace, and even criminal prosecution for fraud, as well as discrediting of their entire academic discipline, profession and/or industry. I see that as pretty high stakes. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
We do mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Yep it appears in the "US government and intelligence agencies" section, which is the place for all statements from US govermental institutions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
We dont currently mention it, its be excided from the article. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@MasterBlasterofBarterTown that is correct, but discussion is underway on this Talk page to establish balanced language to mention it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
It was in the article when I made my comment, if it does appear in the article it should be in the "US government and intelligence agencies" section. As this is just another report from a US govermental institution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:07, 9 April 2025 (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.

mention USGOV site?

The site in question was added within a few minutes of the thread starting. Bon courage (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2025 (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.

The covid.gov site of the US government has redirected to a page endorsing the lab leak theory (news source: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/18/covid-lab-leak-website-trump-white-house. Should this be included in the article?. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

When there's good secondary coverage, which no doubt will be soon. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
There is plenty of good secondary coverage:
PricklyPorcupine (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
All those reports point out that Trump is politically motivated and his stance isn't backed by evidence. I like to point out the giant elephant in the room that US intelligence community assigned only low confidence to the lab escape theory and explicitly admitted there was no concrete evidence available to prove this theory. The reports noted that the lab workers in question didn’t show COVID-confirmed symptoms - some had unrelated illnesses, and others had generic cold-like symptoms. That’s not qualified to be proof. Also, other conspitacy claims like "furin cleavage sites" being unnatural have also been debunked by experts - as those occur in nature too.
Yet Trump's admin have recently changed their official US gov site to claim that lab leak is the facts. But it's a classic case of WP:RECENTISM where the Trump's admins stance isn't based on some new scientific evidence but rather in political blame-shifting. And safe to say the US gov under Trump admin is not a particularly trustworthy source on scientific matters, esp when political motivations are clearly involved. Nor is the US any more authoritative than other govs on this issue so WP:DUE applies. Giving undue weight to a politically compromised, low-confidence theory risks misleading readers and violating WP:NPOV. Smalledi (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
They had low confidence in the natural origin theory too. Regardless of the confidence level, what is of significance is the swing in position from natural origin to research related origin. None of that has anything to do with this Trump story about him promoting the lab origin theory as the reliable sources report it. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
@PricklyPorcupine Many scientific bodies rate natural origin as the most likely and plausible. They override what a politically involved US gov body claims. Regardless, if Trump insisted climate change is a hoax, would we advocate adding that to the lede of the Climate change article and give it equal weight over decades of scientific consensus? Hopefully not. The same logic applies here too on scientific dominated articles. I am simply saying to others don't give it undue weight but as long as it's not in the lede, then I am fine. Because including it anywhere in the lede alongside authoritive scientific positions misleads readers and gives such fringe claims the appearance of legitimacy. I didn't mean to imply I also oppose adding it to US gov responses section, as that seems reasonable. Tho preferably should maybe include the fuller context: that the Trump admin changed that website to endorse fringe theory despite lack of evidence, and for political reasons which are suggested by many of your links.Smalledi (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE is a good read on this type of issue. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm still disinclined to accept "I've pulled up a few news articles" as automatically secondary coverage without any explanation as to why one might think that to be the case.
I see also that someone has decided to insert a quote from the sources calling the new site "pure propaganda", and I think this adequately illustrates why it may not be entirely appropriate for our content to hew to the news coverage of the day. Even if we accept that these are the sources we should be using, editorial judgement should be applied to determine whether something like that is really necessary, or if doesn't follow the existing body of scientific evidence sufficiently summarises things without the dramatic wording. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Worth noting that User:Dan Leonard has added it by now. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
I think today's addition of On April 18, 2025, the second administration of Donald Trump removed the online hub for federal COVID-19 resources, including COVID.gov and COVIDtests.gov, and redirected the domains to a whitehouse.gov landing page entitled "Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19" endorsing the theory. is reasonable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae I think that edit is reasonable too and have no issues with that. Smalledi (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest maybe including additional context, that highlights how scientific experts have criticised that new website and say it "doesn't follow the existing body of scientific evidence on the issue". Such as "Every one of the five pieces of evidence supporting the lab leak hypothesis … is factually incorrect, embellished, or presented in a misleading way". These critiques suggest the website's content is largely unsubstantiated and more aligned with political narratives than with rigorous scientific analysis. [1] Smalledi (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
This is disinfo. It very much follows the science. Jibolba (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Scientists disagree that this nonsense "follows the science". Misleading propaganda and falsehood needs to be correctly identified because of Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. Fortunately the sources are already there for that, and more no doubt will emerge. Bon courage (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Adding something with the correct context seems sensible, I'm sure there are many reliable sources that talk of the quality of the content on the new site. Obviously only into the US government and intelligence agencies section where all such details belong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Oh, scientific evidence? So, "scientists" have already found the missing link, the mysterious animal? Zp112 (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah, "Prez sez lab leak". But I see nothing new. A short sentence, mentioning the date for reference, should do. Alexpl (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
While "Prez sez lab leak" sounds dismissive (and of course you'd never put exactly that in an article), I do think that when IPs and new editors persistently request that something be included, that's usually a sign that we aren't acknowledging the existence of a POV. If adding something like "Donald Trump blames the pandemic on a lab leak" – without implying that he's correct to do so – will stop these requests, then I support adding such a sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. What I see on this talk page is a recurring pattern: a range of editors — new and old — suggesting additions of content based on new reports, and a smaller group of recurring names pushing back against nearly all of them, seemingly out of concern that the article might become too neutral or fair in its coverage. This looks like gatekeeping. 2600:1700:1F00:DC20:4D6B:FBB9:4D54:360A (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes I think we can say "without evidence, the US government decided to declare the lab leak theory valid" or some such. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
We are all just awaiting the CIA signals intelligence, with a bat lady on the phone call, that will be reported by the AP, The Washington Post and NY Times, that this environment will reject, because this article and talk section is stuck in 2021. 2601:248:C000:147A:295E:C996:5DBB:4E91 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
And you can wait until then, if ever, then come back to add it in when it happens. But that hasn't happened as of current so we don't add it in. The CIA themselves had to acknowledge their report is not high confidence. Meanwhile high quality peer reviewed studies still overwhelmingly support natural zoonotic event. And few expects the CIA to show any evidence to prove lab origin; if they had something, they would have shown it years ago. If peer reviewed studies and mainstream media suddenly overwhelmingly support artificial origin/lab origin as a fact then rest assured, Wikipedia will reflect that. Smalledi (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The FBI and CIA already concluded lab leak was more likely than natural origin before Trump administration. Why isn't the opinion of the US's most prominent law enforcement and intelligence agency included in this article? And with that view from the FBI and CIA, why is the Trump admin report even controversial?
https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/fbi-not-allowed-to-brief-biden-on-covid-lab-leak-theory-8df9mr997?utm_source=chatgpt.com&region=global
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/26/cia-covid-lab-leak-theory Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@Helpingtoclarify Don't know how the others can deal with this long term but I really don't want to repeat myself forever, so I am going to make one final full explanation before leaving this thread. The science hasn't changed and as long as it hasn't - you can't claim it has because of CIA report. The CIA themselves rated their report as low confidence as there are a lot of fallacies in their evidence. Example read page 6 of their report.[2] They don't even endorse it strongly themselves.[3] Some sensational media and pundits may always hype it up[4] but both Intel agencies have not publicly released evidence strong enough to meet scientific standards. Go ahead and also ask your Chatgpt bot why Wikipedia policies won't add lab origin as a fact here after CIA and FBI claim it so. Because this is a science dominated article and US agencies minimally need to provide concrete, peer-reviewed evidence in order for their assessments to be included into scientific discourse.[5] As of current, both CIA and FBI have given no evidence to prove it came or was made from a lab, and CIA merely rehashed a low confidence report from 2023.[6] We can mention it in the US gov responses chapter (and we already do) but we can't give it more weight than it deserves, nor can we now falsely imply it's evidence to prove lab made or origin, when the majority of peer reviewed studies overwhelmingly supports natural zoonotic event. WP:DUE. [7][8][9] And no new peer reviewed evidence have ever emerged in past 5 years to dislodge that and we follow the science and not media hype or the CIA 'low confidence' report (which amusingly admits they have no evidence to prove lab leak theory) [10] Smalledi (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The FBI and CIA reports concluding lab leak was most likely origin was mostly based on intelligence they gathered. This is what they do. I don't see how this isn't relevant to support of lab leak theory. For example FBI report cited intelligence pointing to COVID like symptoms in workers at the Wuhan lab before the reported outbreak.
Denying this relevance is just typical for Wikipedia so I get it. The whole article takes on a tone of "conspiracy", which isn't appropriate given backing of these agencies. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Its not typical of Wikipedia, but typical of individual Wikipedia editors, trying to slant our coverage one way. In any case, the statement has been added to the page and we are done here. 2600:1700:1F00:DC20:4D6B:FBB9:4D54:360A (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2025 (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.

1st citation caption

The caption on the first citation says "see numerous reliable sources since 2023 which support this", referring to most scientists believing a zoonotic origin. However, of the 12 listed sources, 10 are from before 2023 and two [11], [12] are from 2023, and neither of these two seem to reference any scientist's opinion from 2023 or later. So I think the first citations' caption should be changed. 24.126.13.3 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for ECP on talk page declined

Hi Everyone, I requested ECP protection for this talk page and for Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2, and my request was declined [13]. Editors and administrators who contributed to that discussion include Tryptofish, Daniel Case, Nil Einne, SmolBrane, Altenmann, and Lectonar. Editors who commented noted that the situation on some other pages is much worse, both in terms of the amount of posting by IPs and SPAs, and in terms of pure disruption and vitriol. They were concerned that ECP would effectively censor the talk pages.

In terms of productive advice to editors, admins and editors advised two remedies. First, they suggested an FAQ, which I think is well covered by the two boxes we keep at the top of these two articles on "Consensus on the Origins of COVID-19" and on "Sources." Basically, we should refer to these more frequently. Second, they suggested that we not "feed the trolls" if discussion becomes unproductive. By mentioning the editors above I think they can comment themselves in case I've misrepresented their views. -Darouet (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

From your request: The talk pages, however, have suffered under a truly withering barrage of endless requests that we depart from the standard of scientific consensus, and treat the concept of a laboratory leak as highly plausible. That’s a gross misrepresentation. The requests have generally been to give due weight to the lab leak theory more than 5 years after the start of the pandemic; to show that many respected, experienced scientists still have serious doubts about the origins of COVID, that scientists have been revisiting the presented arguments for natural zoonosis and finding themselves unconvinced, that intelligence agencies have also had serious doubts about it. Giving the reader an opportunity to see that this is still a controversial topic in both politics and academy, and that many scientists have become equally uncertain about both natural zoonosis and lab leak, is a very different thing from trying to simply push a view of a lab leak being “highly plausible”. Also, “scientific consensus”, especially on recent and controversial topics like these, is something that is subject to change (and 5 years are more than enough time for that to happen). This article fails to address this change by not even acknowledging the existence of the Académie de Médecine report. Editors have been insisting on its inclusion because they value the opinion of scientists, not because they want to throw science in the trash and start an article about mere unfounded conspiracies. 2804:18:965:8AD1:153D:BC8D:5552:DDFB (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
“scientific consensus”, especially on recent and controversial topics like these, is something that is subject to change Scientific consensus could theoretically have changed (duh!) but did not. The evidence for and against is still the same as in 2020.
  • Scientific consensus is about the state of the evidence.
  • Opinions, no matter whose, are not evidence.
That is something that needs to emphasized more because lots of ignorant laypeople do not get it. From thousands of experts, they always cherrypick a handful of people whose opinions agree with their own. But opinions are still not evidence, and consensus is not about opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
A more constructive and complete representation of the disputes on this page could have been made in the ECP request. Linking it here earlier may have improved that. As someone pointed out there: Is this page too contentious to link to a discussion about its own edit protection?
I think the discussion missed the mark about the nature of disagreements on the two sister covid origins articles (Covid Origins and here). There are certainly fringe theory people who believe in the lab leak and it has been pushed by fringe sources (or sources that may not be relevant for Wikipedia, such as the Alina Chan article). People have done an upstanding job of deflecting fringe that does not fit Wikipedia. I wonder if in that battle something has been lost, though.
Categorizing a user who wants to include e.g. the French Academy of Medicine source as disruptive ignores that there is no consensus on whether the lab leak is a fringe theory or scientific minority viewpoint (item 1 at the top of this page). Many of the people who disagree with the state of the article are being reasonable here, including IP users. Ymerazu (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Note. A discussion regarding the ECP request for the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 talk page is currently taking place at Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2#Request for ECP on talk page declined. Following the outcome of the ECP request, alternative measures for protection of this talk page are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#COVID 19 Lab Leak Edit Restrictions?. Regards, 2804:18:963:B9BA:B586:DD28:A457:B5B (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The lead is very chaotic

For example, in 3 different places it mentions that most scientists don't support the theory. It also mixes scientific facts, politics, and opinion of various groups and organizations all over the place. I would propose we rewrite the lead as follows:

1. the description of the theory and its main tenets

2. the current scientific consensus on the theory

3. the history of the idea (briefly)

4. the politics around it.

Thereisnous (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

By all means draft something but your last effort[37] does not give confidence it will be neutral. There is a lot of conspiracism and WP:FRINGE in this topic area and per WP:FRINGESUBJECTS that all needs to be clearly called out. It's also wrong to think there is a "the theory"; LL is a small proposition (a lab leak is possible) but also a grab bad of (wrong) notions, racism and political identity seeking. Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Racism? The "mainstream" zoonosis theory is a far greater breeding ground for racist notions than the lab leak theory. The idea that Covid originated from the supposedly commonplace practice of Chinese people eating bizarre animals like bats and pangolins is like something out of a Yellow Peril propaganda cartoon. 2A06:5900:4A7:800:3DA4:C62D:FD92:4755 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I suppose they're bizarre to Americans. But these are odd ideas without sources, so irrelevant; Wikipedia follows sources. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
It's bizarre to Chinese people too because only a small minority of them eat unusual animals like bats. You're right though, it is irrelevant, just like your uncalled for opinion that the lab leak theory is "racist". No wonder this article is in the state that it's in with users like you gatekeeping it. 2A06:5900:4A7:800:3DA4:C62D:FD92:4755 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Racism's in the mix (kung flu anyone? or the idea the virus was engineered to spare Jews?), it's one of the central themes of high-quality sources analysing this topic. Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Nothing you mention here has anything to do with the theory that Covid originated in a lab in Wuhan. If you're asserting that some sizable portion of the people who favour the lab leak theory over the zoonosis theory genuinely believe that the virus was engineered to spare Jews, you should provide sources to back that up. If you're asserting that the lab leak theory, as it it stands, necessarily involves some sort of "Jewish conspiracy" as one of it's core components, then you should definitely provide sources for that. Otherwise, your claims that the lab leak theory is "racist" are utterly absurd. Particularly coming from a person you ostensibly harbours the (actually racist) belief that the consumption of bat and pangolin flesh is commonplace in China. 2A06:5900:4A7:800:3DA4:C62D:FD92:4755 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, we already mention the conspiracy theory that the virus was engineered to be specific to non-Asians, with sourcing of course. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Spot on. It is funny how these gatekeepers try hard to sound fair and balanced but then eventually lose it and throw ad hominem attacks at "Americans" (presumably WHITE Americans of course) for "racism" in an attempt to shut down the discussion. Out of arguments? Bring up racism! That's what they do. Zp112 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
1. I never attacked "Americans", white or otherwise.
2. The user you are responding to is the person who made the utterly ridiculous claim that the lab leak theory is "racist". They were the one actually trying to shut down the discussion. 2A06:5900:4A7:800:3DA4:C62D:FD92:4755 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
"It" is not racist, but various elements of the LL scene were fuelled by racism, caused racism, and are attractive to people with racial grievances. This is all well-sourced and covered in the article. Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
??? Are you sure you are replying to the right person? You misunderstood my comment. I agreed with you. I said Bon courage brought up "racism" and "Americans" for no reason. Zp112 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Oh nice, personal attacks based on identity. WP:NPA. Zp112 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Not a personal attack, and spurious WP:ASPERSIONS should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Bon courage, please consult WP:GOODFAITH, and please refrain from personal attacks. "Your last effort does not give confidence [your draft] will be neutral" is an example of an attitude that WP:GOODFAITH tries to prevent. Thereisnous (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I can assure you good faith is not at issue. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I accept it as an apology. I would kindly request an edit of your message to remove the personal attack. Thereisnous (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Support: A structured lead like the OP suggests would improve clarity and neutrality. Separating the theory, consensus, history, and the politics makes a lot of sense. Is how Wikipedia handle complex topics elsewhere. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

French Academy of Medicine press release

https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/origine-du-covid-19-un-quasi-consensus-en-faveur-de-la-sortie-de-laboratoire_185031

From the release (translated): "97% of the Academy of Medicine voted almost unanimously to say that we believe that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory error and that lessons must be learned from it to take precautions in the future," revealed Professor Jean-François Delfraissy in a press conference of the Academy of Medicine on April 2, 2025. "It is true that as a virologist, I do not see many arguments in favor of the natural emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,"

Please add to article. Jibolba (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Without a WP:SECONDARY source to confirm that this press release is important, seems WP:UNDUE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Is this good enough?
https://www.liberation.fr/societe/sante/origines-du-covid-lacademie-de-medecine-penche-pour-une-fuite-de-laboratoire-20250402_FYJVUIBDIJH3FDJIW72JFQWBK4/
It also presents dissenting opinions. It seems tables are turning on what was once (and still is—especially around here) considered conspiratorial BS. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:1DFC:F7D5:DEA6:9EF6 (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Isn’t the sciencesetavenir.fr article secondary source coverage? I don’t think that is the press release itself. Rather, it is an article about the press release. I could be wrong though, my french is not very strong. 128.62.105.1 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Please link to any complete statement(s) from the French National Academy of Medicine. Thank you. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
There has not been a public release yet. It is not uncommon for European institutions to go straight to the press with information. Sciences et avenir is very highly regarded on le continent, they are not publishing a fabrication. Jibolba (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Here is the full report published by the Académie nationale de médecine.
2804:7F4:323D:387D:94AE:C945:1ED0:AB70 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Maybe the bigger news is that science works by voting now? Is this relevant for the article Science? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
The fellowship of a national academy voting on a position statement—that's news? Unlike the intelligence agencies they will presumably publish a report the merit of which can be evaluated by the rest of the scientific community. What's the problem? fiveby(zero) 12:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Cette deuxième hypothèse est soutenue par un faisceau de faits et d’arguments, sans qu’elle soit étayée par des preuves. Seems possible the intent and gist of the report may not match that of the statement and press release? Best wait and see on this i think. fiveby(zero) 15:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, in the report itself they seem to incline towards finding a lab leak more likely than natural zoonosis, but I couldn’t to the best of my ability find them stating this explicitly. At least not in the same tone as the statements that the authors gave to the secondary sources above. In any case, this coming from a group of respected virologists/epidemiologists is already a big thing; if anything, authors of the Proximal Origins paper claimed (after subpoenaed) that they had doubts in the first months of the pandemic about the origins but then it became clear to them that natural zoonosis was much more likely. This report goes in exactly the opposite direction. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:94AE:C945:1ED0:AB70 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
A 1:1 FR>ENG translation of the subjunctive here might convey some form of POV where there isn't one. It is literally like "It is supported by an abundance of facts and arguments, without [that which] [it would/might be* supported] [through some evidence(s)]". This is not necessarily dismissing it as "unproven therefore inconsequential". It is just that French grammar always distinguishes between things that are 'conclusively, materially apparent' and things that are 'implausible/plausible/probable' - 'realized' vs 'unrealized. If anything one might just as well read into it as saying "there's not currently any scientific evidence, assuming any scientific evidence that would prove it exists". Jibolba (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, science doesn’t work by pushing politically motivated justifications in the heat of the moment, nor by ignoring facts or suppressing valid hypotheses. In the absence of data, willingness to cooperate or transparency, science is not done by looking at previous pandemics and saying “this is extremely unlikely because it was never proven to have happened before”. It is done by considering with seriousness and no external pressure or fears all possible hypotheses and investigating them appropriately until a consistent conclusion can be obtained or more data becomes available. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:94AE:C945:1ED0:AB70 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Nobody is saying “this is extremely unlikely because it was never proven to have happened before”. Only “this is extremely unlikely”, with actual good reasons. There is no need to invent bad ones.
On the other side, we get spies telling us "no, this is what happened but we cannot tell you why because it is secret" and now some guys saying "no, this is what happened because we voted on it". About happening it before, the "this new disease is man-made" rumor comes with every new disease. This time it is just more virulent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
"On the other side, we get spies telling us "no, this is what happened but we cannot tell you why because it is secret" and now some guys saying "no, this is what happened because we voted on it"
I never read such claims, can you give a source? Apokrif (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
I invented the "because" parts, just like the IP did above, to show how stupid their rhetorical tricks are. What I am saying is that all this is superficial. It's just opinions, not based on anything. And if you ask for evidence, you hear that "it will probably never be published" and "only the result is relevant". And the French press release supplement cites "lack of definitive evidence in favor of either" - is the 97% agreement just a gut feeling? That lack of justification is the reason why none of all that would fly in a scientific journal. Which is the type of source this article should be based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks, even on an IP. There is no consensus that sourcing for this article must be restricted to scientific journals as you are proposing. The lab leak theory is both a scientific and political topic, which is why the majority of our sources referenced here are news sources. The French Academy's press release supplement citing "lack of definitive evidence in favour of either" didn't walk anything back in the report, and it too cited lack of evidence for the position of its members. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to cite a reliable source and not assert your own unsupported opinion. 122.3.203.139 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
An attack on reasoning is the exact opposite of a "personal attack". We do not have any reliable secondary sources about the French Academy's press release; both secondary sources misrepresent it. And I do not need sources for rejecting bad sources. Please think through your responses more carefully before posting them in the future. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Who are you to say they 'misrepresent it'? What? What the hell does Wikipedia bother with secondary sources for if we can just rely on the discretion of you and other editors for analysis? Do you even speak the language?
The Wikipedia rule is to report what the reliable secondary sources say. We have multiple mainstream RSs all saying the same thing.
However, in your mind, the rule doesn't apply here because "Actually they read it wrong. Granted, I didn't read it at all, but it goes against the conventional wisdom of my particular milieu, so these are clearly just philistines".
We are reaching new levels of hubris. This whole article is like a gain of function experiment on Wikipedian sophistry. Jibolba (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
This is the summary of the original article:
Five years after the beginning of the pandemic, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. The hypothesis of a natural origin is opposed to that of a modified virus involved in a laboratory accident in Wuhan, China, the starting point of the pandemic. Knowing the history of the pandemic makes it possible to analyze the major zoonotic risks that persist or even increase and to establish recommendations for epidemiological surveillance and facing the risks related to genetic and dangerous manipulations of viruses. Raising awareness among researchers and students of their scientific and ethical responsibilities regarding the risks of laboratory accidents/incidents is essential. The current context of technological developments in biology, including AI, can lead to serious consequences in the absence of control on their possible impact.
This is the main part of the supplemental press release, which was probably necessary because the original one was misrepresented:
[..] the French National Academy of Medicine wishes to reiterate the spirit and methodology that guided its work and that this report does not claim to resolve an ongoing scientific debate.
The main focus of the report focuses on recommendations concerning the epidemiological surveillance of zoonoses and the prevention of the risks of dangerous virus handling in the laboratory. The report emphasizes the importance of raising awareness of the scientific and ethical responsibilities of researchers regarding biosafety issues and questions related to risky research.
Whether the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonosis or a laboratory accident, both situations raise risks related to viruses that must be better anticipated. It reiterates that the hypotheses of natural transmission via an intermediary animal and a laboratory accident remain open. Its report highlights the lack of definitive evidence in favor of either and emphasizes the need for a rigorous and fact-based approach.
Finally, the Academy emphasizes the urgent need to strengthen the surveillance of zoonotic and epizootic diseases, potential sources of viral emergence, by providing monitoring networks with increased resources.
It also calls for improving biosafety in virology laboratories and promoting a culture of risk and scientific responsibility, in order to effectively anticipate and prevent future health crises.
There is nothing about "97% supporting a lab leak hypothesis". As ScienceFlyer writes below, 97% of the people who voted agreed to approve the report.
We have a page WP:SOURCEWRONG. Also WP:HEADLINES. Read them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Once the academy fully releases the details it could be worth adding something in the "Political, academic and media attention" section. I'm sure it will get some media attention that could justify inclusion. It could be used as a general section for all such voting/polling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
This is now being covered by pretty big sources as relevant [38]. (BFM is France's largest news channel) Seems pretty clearly appropriate to the consensus balance. Just10A (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
  • It's fairly obvious now this French thing has been twisted by misinformation merchants. Wikipedia wisely waits for decent sources rather than swallowing (and regurgitating) the BS. Bon courage (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
    Source? Just10A (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
    Source please. Jibolba (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, it's abundantly clear that the claim about 97% supporting a lab leak hypothesis was false. Looking at the video of the vote, 97% of the people who voted agreed to approve the report. (67 for, 2 against, 3 abstained, 70 non-voting)
    The report even states:

    This [Lab leak] hypothesis is supported by a body of facts and arguments, without being substantiated by evidence.

    The French National Academy of Medicine has put out a supplemental press release to accompany the report. Translated excerpt:

    In light of the reactions sparked by the publication of its report "From the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to the risks of zoonoses and dangerous manipulation of viruses", the National Academy of Medicine wishes to recall the spirit and methodology that guided its work and that this report does not claim to close an ongoing scientific debate.

    The report focuses on recommendations regarding the epidemiological surveillance of zoonoses and the prevention of the risks of dangerous laboratory manipulation of viruses. The report emphasizes the importance of raising awareness of the scientific and ethical responsibilities of researchers in the face of biosafety issues and questions related to risky research.

    Whether the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonosis or a laboratory accident, both situations raise risks related to viruses that must be better anticipated.

    It points out that the hypotheses of natural transmission via an intermediary animal and a laboratory accident remain open. Its report highlights the lack of definitive evidence in favor of either and emphasizes the need for a rigorous and factual approach.

    Finally, the Academy stresses the urgency of strengthening the surveillance of zoonoses and epizootics, potential sources of viral emergence, by providing monitoring networks with increased resources.

    It also calls for improving biosafety in virology laboratories and promoting a culture of risk and scientific responsibility, in order to effectively anticipate and prevent future health crises

    Translations were assisted by Google Translate and DeepL ScienceFlyer (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
    I notice this has been picked-up by science journalist Maarten Keulemans on twitter.[39] So yeah. A useful salutary reminder that we should, per policy, base article on good secondary sources rather than having Wikipedia take the (click)bait from primary/news reporting. In time there may even be some decent secondary sourcing on this incident – who knows! Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
    Sciences et avenir is secondary. Very well respected publication. Jibolba (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
    It's sources (not publishers) which can be secondary. News reporting is primary. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
    Just10A provided a news source. I think we're golden as far as adequate sourcing goes. Jibolba (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
    At some point, the insistence of raising a furore over every single breaking news report that does the usual RSBREAKING level of fact checking, and is neither secondary nor reliable despite repeated insistence otherwise, probably ought to be considered blatant POV pushing and treated accordingly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
    Rather than casting aspersions on other editors (see WP:NPA), it would be more constructive to focus on the content and provide your own rationale, per WP:FOC. We now have coverage in at least three reliable sources, and we ought to discuss here only how to include the content. 136.239.176.100 (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
    Are you counting the two sources that blatantly misrepresented the content as voted almost unanimously to say that we believe that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory error and The Academy of Medicine is leaning towards a laboratory leak among the reliable ones? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
    The sources didn't say that, that's a direct quote from a spokesman in the Academy. If you want to say that you believe that the people who made the report are not properly interpreting their own report, that's fine. But to have that in article space would be WP:OR.
    Also, tone down the hostility. Just10A (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
    I don't want to have that in article space. I don't want any of this in the article space because the articles contradict themselves and the clarification. We should wait until secondary sources tell us that those people have found out exactly what they are trying to say and what not. Conspiracy theorists can be happy with a chaotic state of affairs, but an encyclopedia should not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    I can provide receipts for every single time someone pushed for the use of breaking news sources. They're very easy to find because most of them are new sections. If you consider that a personal attack, feel free to seek a ruling on that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    Accusing other editors of "blatant POV pushing" for citing perfectly valid RS is a personal attack. I've yet to see you articulate your argument as to why news sources can't be used here. See WP:NEWSORG. 124.105.187.76 (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    It is not a personal characteristic to push for inclusion of breaking news, it is a behaviour, and one I would personally suggest people not engage in because it is a rather poor behaviour at that. NEWSORG is not carte blanche to include everything that's passed through a news publisher's press (literal or metaphorical) as you would no doubt see if you read the rest of that page. Start with the part about "serious inaccuracies". Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    The report states: "Cette deuxième hypothèse est soutenue par un faisceau de faits et d’arguments, sans qu’elle soit étayée par des preuves", you could translate preuves as "evidence" or its direct cognate: "proof". That is This [Lab leak] hypothesis is supported by a body of facts and arguments, without being substantiated by proof. -> Which makes much more sense, it seems ridiculous to say that its supported by facts but not evidence. They basically say that the lab leak hypothesis is supported by a body of facts/evidence, but it falls short of hard proof.
    In contrast, of the zoonosis scenario, they say:
    "Depuis lors, aucun foyer de contaminations animales n’a été rapporté en Chine. A l’inverse, des épizooties liées à ce nouveau virus hautement contagieux ont diffusé très rapidement, comme celles décrites dans les élevages de visons au Danemark, ce qui a conduit à l’abattage complet des animaux, tant le nombre de cas augmentait rapidement." - Arguing agaisnt a zoonosis (ie, that there have been no animal outbreaks post-Dec-2019 in China, despite this virus being able to easily cause these, and seeing such in other countries, like the Mink in Denmark.
    "A ce jour, aucun résultat obtenu n’a pu apporter suffisamment d’arguments prouvant qu’un espèce animale infectée était porteuse d’un virus progéniteur de la pandémie" - to date, no result provides sufficient evidence/proves that an animal was infected with the progenitor.
    "D’autres arguments virologiques s’opposent aussi à cette hypothèse : ..." -Other virological arguments oppose this hypothesis...-
    it goes on to list a littany of problems/missing evidence for the zoonosis hypothesis.
    It goes on to say "Malgré l’absence de démonstration de l’origine zoonotique, ce type de risque est toujours" - Despite the absence of a demonstration of the zoonotic origin, the risk is always present.
    In summary, they mention evidence in support of a lab leak, they highlight the lack of evidence for zoonosis, but also state that zoonosis risks are always present. Their forward looking conclusion addresses both sources of risk.
    Taken as a whole, they clearly *at a minimum* consider the lab leak as at least similarly likely to a zoonosis, and overall the report is clearly pro-lab leak.
    They voted on the report as a whole, not just cherrypicked sentenced from it EmaNyton (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    Can't twistily "interpret" a source saying there's no evidence to say there somehow is. There is (obviously) no evidence per multiple RS. There are talking points & factoids sure. The document is a nothingburger that adds nothing to our understanding of the topic. The only thing that might be useful is if secondary sources appear documenting how it's been widely misrepresented as something other than it is. Bon courage (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    > "Can't twistily "interpret" a source saying there's no evidence to say there somehow is."
    Before I get into it, I must ask, are you a Francophone? ("Bon courage" being French after all)
    Lets not equivocate. It says there is no "preuves", which is literally the cognate of "proof", although it is also often translated as evidence. It literally says the leak hypothesis is "est soutenue par un faisceau de faits", that is: supported by a body of facts.
    I don't know about you, but I call facts that support a hypothesis "evidence" (and facts that oppose a hypothesis are evidence too. Facts that aren't evidence are those that are irrelevant to the hypothesis, like the fact that the sky frequently appears blue due to Raleigh scattering)
    > "There is (obviously) no evidence per multiple RS."
    There obviously is evidence supporting a lab leak, I don't know what criteria you are using to determine which sources to include.
    > "The document is a nothingburger that adds nothing to our understanding of the topic."
    This seems to be moving the goalposts. I would agree that it presents no new evidence or arguments regarding the origin. However, it is very relevant to the actual state of the scientific consensus and whether a lab leak is a fringe viewpoint or not.
    > "The only thing that might be useful is if secondary sources appear documenting how it's been widely misrepresented as something other than it is."
    The primary source, the report, clearly leans towards a lab leak. It cites a body of facts supporting a lab leak, and makes specific arguments for it. In contrast, it cites no evidence supporting a zoonosis in this case - the closest it comes is to mention evidence that has been interpreted by others as supporting a zoonosis, and arguing that the evidence doesn't actually support a zoonosis.
    When it comes to the recommendations to avoid future pandemics (table 1), it has 1 recommendation relating to preventing zoonosis, and 3 pertaining to preventing lab leaks.
    In their press release, the authors of the report characterized the report as supporting a lab leak.
    Multiple news sources say that it supports a lab leak.
    The follow up press release did not walk back the first characterization of it as supporting a lab leak, instead decrying "that some criticism has taken the form of personal attacks rather than constructive scientific debate" / "certaines critiques aient pris la forme d’attaques personnelles plutôt que d’un débat scientifique constructif".
    None of the members that voted in favor of the report have spoken up to dispute the characterization of the vote in the news.
    I really don't know what more you could reasonably expect here. EmaNyton (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    Completely agree with @EmaNyton, I think a reasonable and parsimonious reading of the report leads to such conclusions. Also agree that the Académie voted on the report as a whole and not only on the final conclusions (which are more like recommendations for the medical/scientific community, but again based on the premises that the report presents). I don’t see any “twist” in interpretation here; the Académie also says there is no proof for natural zoonosis either, and that is already very significant in itself because it opposes current mainstream scientific points of view. 2804:18:96C:F9B6:61E8:9BE7:D2AC:2524 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. Some actual due diligence. Jibolba (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    Taken as a whole, they clearly *at a minimum* consider the lab leak as at least similarly likely to a zoonosis, and overall the report is clearly pro-lab leak.
    This sounds a lot like your interpretation a la WP:OR, rather than paraphrasing or hard reading of the source material. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Le Monde [40]: La lecture du rapport suggère que l’hypothèse de l’accident de laboratoire a les faveurs du groupe de travail - Palpable (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed.
    A hard reading of the source material is that they acknowledge evidence supporting a lab leak, and that they don't for a zoonosis.
    In addition to that link:
    French Academy of Medicine: COVID-19 likely result of lab accident - Euractiv
    Origines du Covid-19 : l'Académie de médecine ne tranche pas officiellement, mais... – L'Express
    "Dans un rapport publié ce mercredi 2 avril, l’institution penche vers l’hypothèse d’une fuite de laboratoire comme déclencheur de l’épidémie de Covid-19."/ "In a report published this Wednesday, April 2, the institution leans toward the hypothesis of a laboratory leak as the trigger for the Covid-19 epidemic"
    "Malgré sa posture de neutralité qu’elle affiche, l’Académie admet pencher pour l’hypothèse du laboratoire, la jugeant "soutenue par un faisceau de faits et d’arguments", des termes qu’elle n’emploie pas à propos de l’émergence naturelle." / "Despite its stated neutrality, the Academy admits to leaning toward the laboratory hypothesis, deeming it "supported by a body of facts and arguments," terms it does not use regarding natural emergence."
    and the key this is how they presented it to reporters:
    "Les propos tenus par ses responsables lors de la conférence de presse pour présenter le rapport font d’ailleurs peu de doutes quant à la théorie privilégie par l’institution. "97 % de l’Académie de médecine a voté quasi unanimement pour dire que nous pensons plutôt que le SARS-CoV-2 est issu d’une erreur de laboratoire et qu’il faut en tirer des leçons pour prendre des précautions à l’avenir", a ainsi affirmé le professeur Jean-François Delfraissy ce mercredi 2 avril" / "The remarks made by its leaders during the press conference presenting the report cast little doubt on the institution's preferred theory. "97% of the Academy of Medicine voted almost unanimously to say that we believe SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory error and that lessons must be learned from it to take precautions in the future," Professor Jean-François Delfraissy stated on Wednesday, April 2."
    I will reiterate from my earlier comment:
    "
    The primary source, the report, clearly leans towards a lab leak. It cites a body of facts supporting a lab leak, and makes specific arguments for it. In contrast, it cites no evidence supporting a zoonosis in this case - the closest it comes is to mention evidence that has been interpreted by others as supporting a zoonosis, and arguing that the evidence doesn't actually support a zoonosis.
    When it comes to the recommendations to avoid future pandemics (table 1), it has 1 recommendation relating to preventing zoonosis, and 3 pertaining to preventing lab leaks.
    In their press release, the authors of the report characterized the report as supporting a lab leak.
    Multiple news sources say that it supports a lab leak.
    The follow up press release did not walk back the first characterization of it as supporting a lab leak, instead decrying "that some criticism has taken the form of personal attacks rather than constructive scientific debate" / "certaines critiques aient pris la forme d’attaques personnelles plutôt que d’un débat scientifique constructif".
    None of the members that voted in favor of the report have spoken up to dispute the characterization of the vote in the news.
    I really don't know what more you could reasonably expect here.
    " EmaNyton (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Wait for what exactly? Bonewah (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Better secondary sourcing. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Don't include or Wait - It seems most, if not all, of the news reports are unreliable because they contain clearly false information. So waiting for a reliable source is necessary. If you choose not to wait and have to use a source, use the French National Academy of Medicine press release and report as sources. Another consideration is that it seems that the report was mostly agnostic on the issue of origins in an effort to focus on preventing another pandemic, whatever the cause. As such, this report is irrelevant to this page and doesn't need to be mentioned at all. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    No, definitely not irrelevant because it is a report signed by respected epidemiologists and virologists which basically gives due credit to the lab leak theory, does not treat it as an extremely unlikely event or a conspiracy, and basically puts lab leak and zoonosis at least on the same level of possibility despite there being no evidence available for a lab leak (and no concrete evidence for zoonosis either, I should say). This in itself is very significant, not only for this article but also editorially, as it states very clearly for the ones here who still insist on the contrary that peer-reviewed scientific publications are not the only valid source for this topic and, when evidence is suppressed and no scientific results are possible, other kinds of political/intelligence/social evidence take precedence in relevance for such matters. BTW, regarding the discussion “Protected edit request on 19 March 2025 (CIA Assessment)” above, refusing to discuss with an editor and calling someone from your team to remove the paragraph altogether because you were not happy with how it was going to turn out looks very bad. 2804:7F4:323D:855B:1DCA:60A5:F3F1:1B20 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    You say the report is "definitely not irrelevant". I'd love a reliable secondary source to discuss the relevance and significance. My assessment that it might be irrelevant was based on the press release, which downplays the relevance of the origins. You say that "respected epidemiologists and virologists [...] basically gives due credit to the lab leak theory" but the report says the lab leak theory is not "substantiated by evidence." As for the discussion of the CIA assessment, your allegations are 100% false. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    Have you read the report? Instead of extracting parts of a sentence to mislead other editors, go read the report and tell me again that what I wrote above does not adequately represent its position. Those words that you quote are stated, in several passages of the report, under the following line of reasoning: even though the lab leak theory is not substantiated by any evidence (because there isn’t any, thanks to govt blocking which didn’t allow transparent and impartial SCIENCE to be done), it is strongly supported by arguments (so much so that the authors justify their proposal of policies on the very concrete likelihood of the lab leak theory). Do you think that respected virologists and epidemiologists would risk their reputations proposing policies based on a theory that had no reason to be taken seriously? It’s been honestly hard to AGF here and, to avoid disrupting this talk page, from now on I am recusing myself from participating here. 2804:7F4:323D:855B:C9C:99B7:1F2B:491A (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    Woof. A few things:
    1. What in the reporting is 'clearly false'?
    2. How does the release 'downplay the origins'? It gives note after note on how laboratories should be more focused on hygiene and security, because, even if the lab leak remains unproven, WIV had all the makings of a place where something like that very well could have happened!
    3.

    "Il y a plus d'arguments pour la deuxième hypothèse (d'origine humaine, NDLR) que la première", a mentionné Christine Rouzioux",

    "Elles ont montré un point important: des expériences d'insertion de séquence dans des virus faisaient l'objet d'un programme de recherche (...) les travaux avaient déjà commencé à Wuhan".

    There is an absence of scientific evidence on both sides. In that absence, people might (as l'Académie is doing) look to things like Circumstantial evidence and Deductive reasoning. Scientific evidence is not some threshold beyond which all epistemology ceases. Jibolba (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Include the report, which is a reliable source on what the French National Academy of Medicine thinks. Don't include the claim that 97% of the french academy of medicine thinks lab leak is more likely, which seems to be false. (Rather, it seems like 97% voted to approve a report which says that both hypotheses should be taken seriously but doesn't make any claims about relative likelihood, so far as I can see.) --skeptical scientist (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • What is even being discussed here exactly? It seems like the Sciencesetavenir.fr article just blatantly lied and purposefully misrepresented what was actually voted on. So what would we even be including from it? Anyone saying "Include" above (not you, Skeptical scientist) just seems to be a misinformation POV pusher from what I can see. SilverserenC 22:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    Sciencesetavenir.fr was not lying; the report hadn’t yet been published and they were reporting on what the people involved in its preparation were saying and assuming their good faith. One of them said that a 97% approval had been reached for the cause of the pandemic having been a lab leak; that was an overstatement under my reading of the report (even though I would prefer to ask this person to confirm it, were I a journalist, because they were involved in its preparation), but the secondary source is not at fault here. In any case, if a report signed by specialists and authorities on the topic of virology and disease gives the lab leak theory an evaluation of at least “equally likely to zoonosis”, going against what most scientists have been defending (or pushing without proper evidence) for years, that has no relevance for this article and including it is POV pushing? Hardly so, in my opinion. 2804:7F4:323D:855B:1DCA:60A5:F3F1:1B20 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    That means we do not have a secondary source for the report, but only a secondary source for rumors about the report. Too little. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    That may have been the case for sciencesetavenir.fr (though I side with Palpable below), but several other secondary, reliable sources have picked up on the story of the Académie report without giving prominence to the statements of the co-author and focusing on the contents of the report itself. We just throw all of those in the trash too then? 2804:7F4:323D:855B:C9C:99B7:1F2B:491A (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    I was under the impression per a previous comment that we wouldn't get any more of this but since "secondary sources" have been raised yet again, I would love it if someone, anyone, literally any single person here, acknowledged the fact that we have a policy describing what is and is not a primary, secondary or tertiary source (WP:PRIMARY, etc) and in that policy it is clearly written that breaking news is not secondary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    Pardon me for bothering thee, but since I was replied to on an unrelated subject, I wanted to refute. Notice that I haven’t manifested my vote or opinion either here or in other discussions in this talk page, and I won’t be doing so to your relief. Le Monde’s article is far from being breaking news and you know it. We have a report by more than qualified individuals favoring the lab leak theory and we have reliable sources reporting on it, discussing it, and even expressing opinions about it (like Libération upset that the report did not tackle the natural zoonosis risk with its propositions). I am well aware of policy. I am also aware of the urges to bend it as an attempt to filter out content that doesn’t align with particular POVs. 2804:7F4:323D:855B:C9C:99B7:1F2B:491A (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    Again, I am open to hearing arguments on the matter, and even terrible arguments are better than a total lack of acknowledgement, but "I am right and you know it" is not a good place to start a discussion even if we ignore the (implicit) accusation of bad faith. Asserting that something is secondary, or that it isn't breaking news, doesn't automatically make it so. Make an argument. I assume you know how to do so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    My point is that sources like Libération, BFMTV, and Le Monde did not solely state “a report favoring […] and stating […] was approved by […] and person […] involved in its preparation said […] about it”. They actually provide thought and reflection based on the Académie’s report, and provide interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, […] concepts, and ideas taken from the report. I think that is pretty clear by just reading any of them. Therefore, I do not understand how these do not qualify as secondary sources. Now, if what is considered as valid “synthesis” and “interpretation” is a scientific rebuttal or confirmation, or an in-depth long reporting piece debunking it, then yes, these sources haven’t provided it. However, many of the arguments and facts used by the Académie to reach their conclusions are either not scientifically proven due to lack of evidence, or the science done on the available evidence has so far been inconclusive. So it seems like we are once again back to the discussion of what kinds of secondary sources should be considered valid for this article. In any case, I respect the approach of being cautious and waiting, especially given the overstatements given right after the publication of the report. I just don’t agree with the claims that this report or the reporting on it are irrelevant or that they are not appropriately sourced. I’d really like to hear what you have to say about this and I will carefully read it and think about it, but I will leave it to other editors to continue this discussion further instead of me (as I will not be participating here anymore).2804:7F4:323D:8BA8:4FD:30CD:F191:517B (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    Breaking news is classified as primary as a matter of policy, not based on contents (tangentially, editorials, op-eds and other opinion pieces are also so-classified, not based on contents). I suppose you could try and argue reliability based on the contents (just to be clear, this is not a recommendation), but whether something is secondary and whether something is reliable are two different questions, even though breaking news is typically considered neither. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    The real issue here is that many inexperienced/drive-by editors evidently have little understanding of what an encyclopedia essentially is: a summary of accepted knowledge about a topic. Instead they seem to want some kind of rapidly-responding discourse dashboard. Another mistake these editors make is that their policy-adrift pushes for content have any sway. Thus, much time is wasted. The job here is actually pretty simple: find the best sources (generally scholarly, mainstream, authoritative, independent, and respectably- & reputably-published) and we can digest what they say. Job then done. Bon courage (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    So the best characterization of “Le Monde” to you is that it is exclusively a breaking news source? “Le Monde” is a respected newspaper mostly known for its reporting and opinion pieces. No one goes to “Le Monde” or “Libération” as a first source for breaking news. The same applies to the “Le Monde” reference in question: it is simply not breaking news (just claiming breaking news is not allowed by policy does not turn something into it, neither does it make your point any clearer), it is reporting at best and reporting is not classified as primary based on policy. If you want to give this piece of information, which editors are trying to include, time so that things settle, then fine, argue for that, but don’t come painting these sources or references as inadequate or rushed because they aren’t. 2804:18:966:196A:F485:10CF:AAC2:DBB0 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    exclusively a breaking news source ← straw man argumentation. But news reporting is primary. Bon courage (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    You are welcome to argue that it isn't breaking news, but you do actually need to put forward an argument beyond "I am right and you know it". Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
    If what I wrote doesn’t convince you, so be it. Anyway, the consensus—at least around here—seems to be that it is not breaking news, so if anyone should be trying to put forward an argument, that wouldn’t be me. 2804:18:1903:9E0A:CC69:D79E:E567:F04C (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, I'm not saying that all of these articles are bad, I think Le Monde did a reasonably good job given the time constraints, but as a rule breaking news reports are not consistently of sufficient quality, nor are they sufficiently far removed. Policy and guidelines can be overridden in exceptional circumstances, but I see no argument that these are exceptional, and it is somewhat difficult to have a sensible discussion on making exceptions to guidelines when the people wanting the thing to happen don't seem to acknowledge the guidelines even exist. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    Well, indeed and for a WP:CTOP editors need to "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines" and "follow editorial and behavioural best practice". Arguing for building content out of dodgy WP:PRIMARYNEWS ain't that, and repeatedly arguing for it is problematic. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    The Le Monde, Libération and Euractiv all look like high quality secondary sources for this story. Please WP:AGF and leave it to the closer to determine consensus on how we may use them. 119.111.137.238 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    What, in this context, would constitute a secondary source? What would a news source have to do in reporting on the Academie release that would satisfy the WP guideline? Jibolba (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    News reporting is primary. Newspapers are hardly ever secondary sources, except when they do e.g. long-form investigation/analysis pieces, and they are seldom reliable when in that mode. What is needed here is some independent expert analysis of the whole mess. Bon courage (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    Forgive me, but how is that not exactly what the Academie's release is? Not independent because they are affiliated with the French government? Not experts? Not analysis? Not published in a journal? Everything you list would appear to have been provided. What do you take issue with? Jibolba (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    It's a press release, and part of 'the whole mess' rather than knowledge about it at a remove. Bon courage (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    They released the report. Then they released press releases on the report and acceptance of it.
    Then news papers reported on it with analysis.
    It seems to me that the report itself is the primary source, and we have no shortage of secondary sources about this report 194.209.129.68 (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    News reporting is primary; see WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Bon courage (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    Several of the news reports classify as secondary. The Le Monde piece, for example, does not merely describe the Academie's report, but also provides its own analysis and commentary. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia - WP:NEWSPRIMARY. 12.30.31.196 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    According to your link, "In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source." This page currently relies heavily on primary sources to support the zoonosis theory; considering you don't approve of primary sources in this article, would you be ok with me removing all of those? (Pekar et al. "The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2", for example). Hi! (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
    But those papers got some actual WP:SECONDARY coverage and it's common to cite the primary alongside the secondary in such cases. Personally I would prefer to remove the primary sources and give all the furin cleavage content a similar haircut, but there may also be a WP:PARITY issue – relaxing sourcing requirements so the WP:FRINGE theories are kept in a mainstream context. Bon courage (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Note that there are two separate events here which seems to be causing confusion. The Sciences et Avenir article is reporting on both (1) the Academie report which is pretty equivocal on origins, and (2) on Delfraissy's much stronger comment at the press conference that most of the group thinks it was a lab leak. Reliable sources have covered both events, and there does not seem to be "misinformation" in the sources. Le Monde also has an article on the report [44], which they see as favoring lab leak: La lecture du rapport suggère que l’hypothèse de l’accident de laboratoire a les faveurs du groupe de travail.. - Palpable (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    The part where I personally have doubts is whether Delfraissy's statements accurately reflect the views of the group. I believe the reporting that he really did say that "97% de l'Académie de médecine a voté quasi unanimement pour dire que nous pensons plutôt que le SARS-CoV-2 est issu d'une erreur de laboratoire," but I think this statement misrepresents what the memmbers actually voted for (accepting the report). So this statement may be misinformation, even if the reporting on it is accurate. --skeptical scientist (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    You may be right and this just shows why we need secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not breaking news. The LeMonde article is a secondary source as they were (presumably) not involved in the creation of the report or commentary at the press conference. This is just garden variety news reporting and i see no reason why at least LeMonde shouldnt be viewed as a reliable source. Bonewah (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Inlcude. We have both primary and multiple secondary sources. Secondary sources are reliable and primary source is notable. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    Incorrect. No secondary source(s). Yet, anyway. Bon courage (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    No, there are several secondary sources .. you are mistaken. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    Hitchen's razor applies. None have been presented so far. If some have since appeared, then: citation required! Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    Newspaper articles are the textbook definition of reliable secondary sources. Bonewah (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    100% wrong. See WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Pretty shocking to see this in a non-newbie. Bon courage (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    Nonsense. First of all, that is an essay, not policy. Second, nothing in the primary section or that essay applies here as LeMonde is reporting on the release of a report and commentary. They are not eye witnesses, its not breaking news or anything like that. Third, the essay itself says repeatedly that Primary does not equal bad and secondary does not equal good. It further states that "The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does." which, at least i the case of the existence and content of the report, we can. The actual policy page states "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Again, any user can compare LeMonde's analysis with the report itself, so even if the Lemond article is primary it still can be used. Bonewah (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    It is in fact not a mere "essay" but one of our WP:INFOPAGES, written to provide clue. A contemporary news report is a primary source. This is basic. Primary sources may well be "reliable" for what they say (though for this incident many are not), so the question is of weight. Wikipedia article are based on secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    WP:NEWSPRIMARY Says plainly at the top that it is not policy. WP:INFOPAGES says plainly it is not policy. It doesnt actually matter, there is no prohibition on using primary sources even if this LeMonde article was a primary source, which it is not. The very essay you cite, WP:NEWSPRIMARY, says repeatedly that primary does not equal bad and you are free to use them. As does actual policy. Bonewah (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
    How can an explanation of sourcing types be "policy"? This is just information page aimed at editors who are not educated on source status aiming to clue them up, as it's a common error to call news reporting "secondary". As to editors being "free to use" primary sources, this is a misrepresentation of policy. Primary sources may be used with care in certain situations, but the basis of articles must be secondary. Bon courage (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
    Well, luckily for us this material is not the basis of this article, but merely material to include, so lets move on to how we should use it. Bonewah (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
    I think any piece of (purported) knowledge is a basis of the article. Primary sources are then useful for touching-in details. But in any case now the argument is no longer that this is a "textbook" secondary source, but the desire to push it remains, the question would be of WP:WEIGHT. In other words, what good (secondary, reliable) sources are discussing this matter to tell us it is weighty enough to merit inclusion without POV-pushing? Bon courage (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
    Hypothetically, what would such a secondary, reliable source look like? In recent weeks, we have gone through an extensive series of what would in any other case be considered RS reporting on this issue. None of which have proven satisfactory due to some particular fatal flaw or other.
    In your perfect world, what does a secondary, reliable, non POV-pushing article on this topic consist of? Bullet points if you wish. Jibolba (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
    An academic textbook/chapter/article analysing this incident within the lab leak broader context. Bon courage (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
    Reminder for new editors that they should also look at WP:MEDRS. When it comes to medical claims Wikipedia has enhanced reliability standards. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    Reminder for older editors that There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. 2804:18:96C:F9B6:61E8:9BE7:D2AC:2524 (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    @2804:18:96C:F9B6:61E8:9BE7:D2AC:2524 I feel as though some clarification will soon be needed about this (if not in fact already overdue).
    Different editors seem to take different views of what the previous RfC consensus actually means: some think it means that MEDRS sources are not preferred (or even cannot be used?) for article text about pandemic origins - others think that the strict requirements of MEDRS are set aside but the usual hierarchy of sources still applies, and presumably other editors take a range of views between and around these positions.
    In my view, friction on this Talk page (at least) might be reduced by some clarification about what the existing consensus is understood to mean. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    We had a recent back-and-forth with the editor who authored that consensus close (after an attempt to edit it without an RfC was made) and it was at least made clear, from what I recall, that MEDRS can be used where it already is, can also be used in other situations (i.e. it is not banned, of course), but in general non-MEDRS is perfectly acceptable for “disease and pandemic origins” and should not be discarded/ignored/suppressed even in the presence of MEDRS. I agree that this has been a huge source of friction here and an RfC is needed. 2804:18:96C:F9B6:61E8:9BE7:D2AC:2524 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    It's just a nothing. An attempt was made to extend MEDRS more generally, but it (thankfully) failed. So as everywhere, the WP:PAGs apply in the usual way: WP:BMI needs MEDRS sourcing, WP:NOTBMI does not. Bon courage (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    @Bon courage I don't think the situation is that straightforward. For example, are peer-reviewed sources on pandemic origins to be preferred to non-peer-reviewed sources? Are publications in epidemiological journals to be preferred to publication in economics journals - or vice versa? The RfC close has been interpreted by some editors as creating exceptions to the usual hierarchy of sources... Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    That's a separate question to the MEDRS question. Again normal WP:PAGs are not suspended for this topic area: WP:BESTSOURCES give best WP:NPOV and WP:SCHOLARSHIP is valued, for example. Bon courage (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    Wikipedia always gives preference to academic, peer reviewed, secondary sources. Thise should always be preferred where available. MEDRS reduces the extent to which lower quality sources can be permitted, at all, for BMI. But this doesn't change that if a newspaper contradicts a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal, Wikipedia will weight the journal as more significant than the newspaper if it treats the newspaper as due mention at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    Wikipedia gives preference to academic sources when they exist. But when only news media exists, then its a simple matter of WP:DUE. I don't see how this new story contradicts any peer-reviewed paper, unless I am missing something. 70.158.101.137 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    Academic eh... Académique even. Jibolba (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not an RFC, but yes it seems to me we can add this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Do not expand until such time as a proposal is put forward for the whole section which is policy compliant. If anything is to be included from this the whole COVID-19 lab leak theory#Political, academic and media attention section should be revised so that any updated material does not lead to a net increase in the section size. It's not in accordance with WP:NPOV to expand the section whenever there is low quality sourcing making statements about the goings on in the facilities of competitor nations. The only condition under which there should be a net increase to the size of the section is if, and only if, there is a WP:WEIGHT of coverage from review articles from MEDLINE-indexed scientific journals which support the assessments. TarnishedPathtalk 09:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Remove "theory" from the title.

COVID did start in a lab! Why do we call it a "theory"? Our intelligence agency has proof that COVID started in a lab.

(BLP violation removed)

See Also: covid.gov Vanleos (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

A, see wp:fringe B, theory does not mean what you think it means. C, no, not all said it (with low confidence), and there are more than 2 (of both countries and US intelligence agencies). D, read wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Your first claim is unproven and your second claim is even shakier; certainly none of our intelligence agencies has ever claimed to have proof. I'm assuming that you mean US intelligence agencies, e.g., CIA, DIA, but I'm not aware of any intelligence agency in any country that has claimed to have proof. If you mean that one of them has proof but has not disclosed it, then again it is on you to prove the claim with reliable sources. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Do we consider BBC to be an RS?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7vypq31z7o
"Germany's foreign intelligence service believed there was a 80-90% chance that coronavirus accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab, German media say."
I'd imagine they don't have concrete evidence for this claim, hence the uncertainty, though I expect we'll never have definitive origin proof one way or another. It's also undeniable there's a considerable amount of personal politics getting dragged into this discussion. 162.222.63.62 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Actually, the CIA does believe in the lab leak.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o Vanleos (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Welcome! Wikipedia can only include content that people can verify is in a reliable source. Whitehouse.gov is not a reliable source. See WP:V for more information about verifiability.
You're especially mistaken to call whitehouse.gov "our" intelligence agency. Wikipedia is not intended to be written from a United States point of view nor is the United States government an authority that determines what is included in Wikipedia. Ymerazu (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Nor is whitehouse.gov an intelligence agency. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
You are right, of course. Ymerazu (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
It is mostly common sense that tells us that the lab leak is real. We cannot technically prove that Amelia Earhart is dead. We cannot technically prove that Frank Sinatra had ties to the mafia. But common sense, along with lots of evidence, tells us that Earhart is dead, and that Ol' Blue Eyes was a member of the mafia. This is exactly why your party lost the election, because you try to spread propaganda into the world, to fight common sense. Vanleos (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
That is wp:or. 14:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Both FRINGE and] OR. My party did not lose the election in, e.g., Canada; in fact, my party did not field any candidates anywhere but in the US. The term common sense is usually a dog whistle for prejudice. In wiki the gold standard is RS, as defined by Wikipedia. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen." - attributed to Albert Einstein. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_46&oldid=1290441818"