Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Deepfriedokra, how long does the protection last and how do we resolve this situation with RandomCanadian? This user removes anything they don’t like, and their latest revert removed well sourced content from Guest2625 and Eccekevin and an entire section I added on Testing Misinformation. Aren’t there policies against removing well sourced content without explanation on the talk page? CutePeach (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:BRD and reverted to a version before the reverting, before noticing how much of it there had been and going to RFPP, hoping there would be further discussion here. See the preceding sections, where I've failed to notice your name so far. Also, you deliberately not pinging me cannot at this point be taken as anything even remotely ressembling AGF. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 13:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice the section on testing, which basically went under the radar with all of the other reverting. @

Astronomy.com

called the meteor origin theory "so remarkable that it makes the others look boring by comparison".":

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The article used to state that in addition to Joe Biden, also several scientists^[1] (including those who wrote the Science letter), and Anthony Fauci called for new investigaitons. In particular, Fauci has stated that while he still believes in the natural origin of the virus outbreak, he was not fully convinced of it and that the lab leak claim needed to be investigated further.^[2] Yet, this has all been removed by the same users that keep trying to call the lab leak a hoax and conspiracy theory instead of what it is, a viable (albeit minority view) scientific hypothesis that needs investigation.^[3]

The current article is misleading, since it gives the impression that no scientists consider the lab leak possible. This is inaccurate, hence for balance the comments by Fauci and the writers of the Science letter should be included. Eccekevin (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely =/= impossible. And you're not correctly reading the text in the article: "Most virologists remain convinced that a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 is the most likely scenario." does not say either A) that all virologists think so or that B) a zoonotic origin is certain. That it doesn't paint the lab leak in a good light, though, is perfectly accurate and not misleading, per

WP:NPOV. If you don't like it, you're free to present contradictory reputable sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 02:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that Fauci and many other scientists (including the Science letter) are calling the results of that investigation in question should be mentioned. Currently, Biden is mentioned, but it's important to show it's not just politicians, but scientists too. Eccekevin (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Not all scientists who signed the Science letter are "calling the results of that investigation in question". This quotes Baric saying that the investigation was deficient in, for example, it's "failure to conduct a thorough, transparent review of biosafety measures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.", but he is then described as saying that he still firmly thinks that SARS-CoV-2 is zoonotic, and that "The suggestion that it would have taken some Chinese science experiments to get the virus from bats in Yunnan to human beings in Wuhan seemed to leave him slightly affronted, on behalf of the natural world. ". In other words, scientists calling for more thorough investigations does not necessarily equate with them thinking the WHO report is wrong, only that it could be improved or done better. Which is not a unique concern to virology or any particular field: scientists always want to make more thorough studies, especially if past ones have failed to (definitively) settle the question [as is likely to be the case with SARS-CoV-2 for quite some time, considering how much time it took for SARS-CoV (1) without it causing a global pandemic...]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, but the page as it is now is written as to suggest that that investigation is conclusive, nothing further is needed, and no scientist disagrees with the outcome or criticizes it. Which is patently not true. Inserting its finding without even mentioning that there are scientists who are skeptical or critical, or even just want more information is misdirecting the reader. In particular, given Fauci's relevance and the fact he has seemingly changed his stance, should be included Eccekevin (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"written as to suggest that that investigation is conclusive" ← the section that starts "Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined" you read as "conclusive"!?

talk

) 13:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's misleading - yes, the section starts with those words, but a lot of the rest of the section seems to convey a good deal of certainty. Here's another sentence from that section: "A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the accidental release of the virus from a laboratory as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence, yet misinformation about the evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread." In other words, the WHO is right, and anyone who says something different is misinforming you. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be correct; anybody who misrepresents the evidence and likelihood is in the misinformation realm (according to all our good sources). But we don't say anything is "conclusive", as the sources don't either.

talk

) 13:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Korny O'Near brings up a reasonable concern in our clarity. Is any/every source which comes to a different conclusion from the WHO, including those released before and after with different levels of evidence available, misinformation? Or is there a distinction between 'disagreement with the mainstream' and 'outright misinformation' which we need to delineate more clearly? I think we do this much better in the Bio-weapon section since it was split, than in the Lab accident section. I'd suggest we should be careful not to place opinions in the misinformation section (especially when the refutation is not that they're impossible, just "extremely unlikely" according to our most credible source), and better explain what the misinformation was. Otherwise we risk the weird circumstance where we say "The WHO Director-General said this was being investigated. The investigation isn't misinformation, but anyone else advocating for the investigation are engaging in misinformation."

The last paragraph of the Lab accident section especially needs work. We cite a news article referencing Tedros instead of Tedros' actual statement, we relate it to an unsourced US official's statement in January instead of the release of the WHO-China report, and then jump to the Biden call for investigation that doesn't seem to fit either the article (more suited to Investigations than Misinformation) or the paragraph. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That could be reasonably solved by dissociating calls for investigations from serious sources from any particular precise scenario, for example at the top of the #Virus origin theories section (under the existing paragraph) or under the #Wuhan lab origin one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That may be a good tactic, but the fly in the ointment is determining which calls for investigations come from "serious sources". Are politicians serious sources? If they're US President? Does the level of seriousness change president to president, and if so how do we verify that in a neutral way? We currently cite intelligence agencies as dismissing the lab leak, but that's arguably

WP:CHERRYPICKING

since there are other intel reports to the contrary (this being the nature of intel). Can intel agencies be both a non-serious source and a reliable source simultaneously? Because that's how the section is currently written. I see a ton of challenges with this technique.

Perhaps a less troublesome tactic is to identify some solid specific examples of misinformation spread about the lab leak option, which we can refer to instead or trying to speak in overly broad (and thus unclear) terms. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I think the section should just start with something like "The origins of COVID-19 remain unknown; a majority of scientists believe it originated from animals and spread naturally to humans, while some scientists believe that it leaked from a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Of those who believe it was due to a lab accident, some believe the original source of the virus was bats in the Yunnan province, while others believe it was bioengineered through gain-of-function research." Maybe not that wording, but something to that effect. Then the whole rest of the section can cover theories on which there is true consensus that they are false, like that the virus was intended as a bio-weapon. There's no need to cover the general lab leak theory in any great detail, since it's not obvious misinformation; it's already covered in places like

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Korny O'Near (talk

) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that would be

WP:FRINGE

, and derive some questions from there to soo how this should be covered:

1. Is the lab leak "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field"? opening sentence of
   WP:FRINGE
2. Based on the above, how can we present the lab leak "in proportion to its representation in reliable sources"?
   WP:UNDUE
   , starting with the paragraph about "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. "

I don't think that the answer to the first question is controversial. The lab leak, unambiguously, "departs significantly from the prevailing views in its particular field". That leaves question two, which is a bit trickier. The lab leak has received coverage in multiple reliable sources, but within scholarship, it is largely deemed extremely unlikely, on the few times it is even mentioned.

WP:CRYSTAL attitude is even warranted). So, in conclusion, while we can clarify the bits about investigations and such, your suggested text would be an entirely incorrect summary of the situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 17:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first point. Two significant details around the second item:

• This is the atypical case of the Misinformation article, not Investigations, so how we write about it must likewise change as we're now discussing misinformation.
• We're comparing the
  WP:FRINGE/PS
  position.

From

WP:FRINGE: Not all pseudoscience and fringe theories are alike. In addition, there is an approximate demarcation between pseudoscience and questionable science, and they merit careful treatment. We must be cautious not to unduly conflate the scientific view with either misinformation, or the conspiracies justifying themselves on the minority science. Bakkster Man (talk

) 18:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I would say that the lab leak theory unambiguously does not depart significantly from the prevailing views in its particular field. Everyone except the WHO seems to be saying that, whether or not it's likely, it's plausible. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many sources besides the WHO which say that the origin is likely zoonotic and that while the lab leak is 'possible', it is also 'extremely unlikely' and 'difficult to disprove'. If your statement that this view is held only by the WHO was correct, it should be trivial for you to find peer-reviewed papers which dispute its findings. @Bakkster Man: my comment was aimed at the suggested wording, "The origins of COVID-19 remain unknown [...]". Of course, when discussing misinformation, we just need to make clear what the scientific position is before describing misinformation. Hence why the proposed statement was inaccurate in accomplishing that purpose. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say finding a peer-reviewed paper on any specific topic is "trivial"... I don't know, but then again I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed paper arguing the other way (that a lab leak is extremely unlikely) either. There are certainly reliable sources quoting various scientists in the field as saying that a lab leak is possible, like this March 2021 Technology Review article. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's as easy as going on PubMed and making a decent query (example) or on sites of leading publishers (ex. Nature). I mean, it is easy enough to find recent papers which seemingly make no mention of lab leaks or anything of the like (as though there were, hold your breath, no true controversy...), such as this in Experimental & Molecular Medicine, vol. 53, p. 537–547 (2021). I would assume that if the lab leak was as widespread among scientists as some claim, finding papers which claim the reverse would be equally "easy enough". See also the comment somewhere I was making about

WP:FRINGELEVEL... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 21:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, you found one paper. I don't think going through scientific literature and trying to do a tally is a useful way to gauge the scientific consensus anyway - that starts to get close to original research. There are a variety of reliable sources stating that the lab leak theory is gaining credibility among scientists, which seems like proof enough that it's not a fringe theory. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There are also a variety of reliable sources (see for ex.

WP:MEDPOP - see also this comical take on the situation), it's better to go directly to the scientific sources, and give more weight to these. There are some of these which explicitly say that there is consensus (although they're a bit dated) - I'll provide a citation if you really are not convinced. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 23:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Thoughts on how else we can reword the intro paragraph to better differentiate the mainstream, the alternate scientific theory, and the conspiracy?

Current: [Al]though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theories related to the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines. According to the World Health Organization, intentional bio-engineering of SARS-CoV-2 has been ruled out by genomic analysis. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:

Proposed Although the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theories related to this topic have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines. According to the World Health Organization, intentional bio-engineering of SARS-CoV-2 has been ruled out by genomic analysis. An alternative hypothesis posits that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, although there is no evidence to support this, and most virologists consider this to be an extremely unlikely possibility.

Correctly divides between the two main "lab origin" scenarios and describes their relative standings in academe? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

These are both bad. @RandomCanadian: - you're right that not all that much has changed since, mid-2020 in the consensus of scientists, as noted in those sources. To quote The Guardian, "the broad consensus among scientific experts remains that the most likely explanation is that Covid-19 jumped to humans from an animal host in a natural event." In other words, just as before, most scientists view zoonotic origin as more likely, but a lab leak as plausible. Again, it's really only the WHO, as far as I can tell, who have used the "extremely unlikely" wording. What seems to have mostly changed since last year, by the way, is that mainstream media no longer refer to all lab leak theories as "debunked" and "conspiracy theories". You could say that it took them a year and a half to finally understand what the scientists were saying. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's possible to remove "extremely" if it cause offense. Although "possibility" implies that it is not ruled out, which seems accurate, per the sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Unlikely" would be better than "extremely unlikely", but even better would be "less likely". By the way, that's not the only strange thing about the current text (or the proposed text, which is rather similar). It jumps around from thought to thought with no real logic. Even the first sentence is strange: "Although the origin is undetermined, there has been a lot of speculation". Shouldn't it be "Because", if anything? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Because" would establish too clear of a causal link between the two, so would likely be

WP:SYNTH. Maybe a better wording would be "The undetermined origin of SARS-CoV-2 has allowed unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theories related to the topic to gain popularity during the pandemic"? "allowed" is much weaker than "because". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 02:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to establish any kind of causality. I think the awkwardness stems from the fact that the paragraph is very meandering, jumping back and forth from information to misinformation. I still like the structure I suggested earlier: start briefly with the plausible theories, then move on to the implausible ones (which, after all, are what this article is about). Korny O'Near (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Second Proposal While the most likely origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a natural crossover from animals, the precise origin of the virus has not been identified. Unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theories related to this topic have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines, although this possibility has been ruled out by genomic analysis according to the World Health Organization.

An alternative hypothesis under investigation is that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, although most virologists consider this to be an unlikely possibility. Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility, including to stoke anti-China sentiments.[1]

Thoughts? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: This could go at the top of the section about origins; since it is a broad overview. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is better, although I think it would be better still to list all the plausible theories first, then move on to the implausible ones. The current wording is misleading, in my opinion, because it says that any theory about intentional engineering is a conspiracy theory. In fact, one theory that has not been ruled out is that the virus was intentionally engineered, via "gain of function" research, but that its escape from the lab was accidental. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK that was already ruled out by Andersen et al. back in March last year, and by multiple papers since which comment on how genomic analysis shows no signs of any deliberate engineering. The only lab leak theory which is not is the one where the lab is not necessary (natural virus which was somehow not detected or recorded). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The WHO report described it this way: We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome. They cite Andersen et al. @Korny O'Near:, do you have a suggested wording to more clearly distinguish that what was ruled out was engineering related to an intentional release (weaponized or vaccine sales)? This was my intent behind putting these claims into a single sentence. Perhaps replace the sentence with Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was manufactured for use either as either a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines, although these possibilities have been ruled out by genomic analysis according to the World Health Organization. And yes, I agree this would be best placed at the top of the Wuhan lab origin section, before the two subsections describing each. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, before we talk about wording, we should decide whether the gain-of-function research theory counts as misinformation or not. I haven't read any of these scientific papers, but many recent reliable sources say that an engineered virus remains a possibility (see here for one example - note that the more controversial topic is not whether gain-of-function research occurred, but whether the NIH funded it). So if there indeed is a conflict between what scientific papers from a year ago say and what recent newspaper articles say, we should go with the recent newspaper articles - I believe

WP:PRIMARY applies here, as does common sense. Korny O'Near (talk

) 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that recent scientific papers still say the same thing. For ex., [2]:

Other strategies, more speculative than those listed above, have been used to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020). The evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated (Andersen et al., 2020). Moreover, the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020) is not necessary to explain the pandemic.

So basically scientists have been saying the same thing all along, while the media have gone on to both ends of the spectrum, from "conspiracy theory" to "mainstream"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Per

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, I wouldn't consider GoFR as ruled out, nor whether it was performed at WIV (on SARS-CoV-2 or otherwise) to be a conspiracy theory. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has performed research into bat coronaviruses since 2005, and identified the RaTG13 virus which is the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2. Research topics included investigations into the source of the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak and 2012 MERS outbreak, some of which involved conducting gain of function research on viruses. The proximity of the laboratory to the initial outbreak has led some to speculate that it may be the entry point. Deliberate bioengineering of the virus for release has been ruled out, with remaining investigations considering the possibility of a collected natural virus inadvertently infecting laboratory staff during the course of study. I see it as an orthogonal question. The 'inadvertant lab leak' could result from GoFR, serial passage, or simply direct human infection from a bat sample. Same concept with the intermediary species including pangolins, snakes, and another unidentified intermediary, we only need to distinguish if there's a compelling reason. Bakkster Man (talk

) 16:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

My reading of the sources is that the genome is such that if it had been manipulated in any way, whether by GoFR or serial passage, this would show in the genome. Scientists seem to agree that the virus shows no such signs, due to the significant amount of synonymous substitutions (favoured because they are less likely to break stuff...) and due to the even spread of mutation throughout the genome. Hence the 'inadvertant release' essentially rests on the last scenario you list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess I take a more pragmatic approach. Is this aspect something that the entire theory hinges upon, or otherwise so notable that we have to mention it one way or another? Particularly on this page relating to misinformation? If not, I'd rather leave it unaddressed on this page.

That's why I split the above proposal the way I did, clarifying that the WHO ruled out bioweapons, and leaving it out of the leak hypothesis. Perhaps this is better addressed on

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, and only mentioned here in the Lab accident section if we have good sources about misinformation relating to GoFR (CDC funding, for example?). Bakkster Man (talk

) 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the gain-of-function theory really has to be mentioned, to separate it from the bioweapon theory. And I think it has to be mentioned as a theory considered plausible. It doesn't matter how many scientific papers say it's impossible (if any actually do) - reliable, current secondary sources say it's possible, and those always take precedence. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarity, since we'd want to source it wherever we make reference, could you post any secondary sources you're thinking of? Even better if they meet

WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Bakkster Man (talk

) 17:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, yes, I'm aware of

WP:MEDPOP, but I don't think it applies here, because what's being discussed here isn't some actual fact of biology, but rather a gauge of current scientific consensus - and unless there's some scientific meta-study that tries to do that, I believe these secondary sources are our best indicator. Again, we're not trying to determine the origins of the virus here, just trying to determine what is considered "fringe" and what is not. Korny O'Near (talk

) 17:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends what we're trying to gauge. Acceptance of the view among scientists, or reporting on it by news outlets? The latter could, in fact, be misinformation (for the reasons mentioned in

WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For the fringe view itself, you're right that sources supporting fringe views often have less weight/reliability. But I go back to only using them (at least here, rather than Investigations) if we can't suitably distinguish the ruled out bioweapon elements otherwise. Bakkster Man (talk

) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We're trying to gauge acceptance among scientists. As far as secondary sources, this New York Times article from last week seems to fit all the criteria - it quotes NIH director Francis Collins and two other scientists as saying that the bioengineered virus theory merits further study. This Technology Review article gives similar information. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the NYT article does not "quote NIH director Francis Collins... as saying that the bioengineered virus theory merits further study". They quote him as saying It is most likely that this is a virus that arose naturally, but we cannot exclude the possibility of some kind of a lab accident, and lab accident is not synonymous with a bioengineered virus. I was looking for sources relating the lab leak specifically to gain-of-function as you mentioned, with the only mention by NYT being to US Senators Mike Braun and Josh Hawley. Even where Technology Review mentions it relating to the Science letter only regarding two of the 18 scientists, and only as context for their past interest in the subject (rather than linking it to a belief that this was necessarily the path for a lab origin).

But yes, it does repeat the claim we've held to, that the majority (not just Francis Collins) view is that a so-called natural spillover from animal to human remains the most plausible explanation. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Collins is only quoted as saying "It is most likely that this is a virus that arose naturally, but we cannot exclude the possibility of some kind of a lab accident"; and this is prefaced by the following paragraph:

Despite the absence of new evidence, a number of scientists have lately begun speaking out about the need to remain open to the possibility that the virus had accidentally emerged from a lab, perhaps after it was collected in nature, a lab origin distinct from a creation by scientists.

"distinct from a creation by scientists". Confirms what I was saying in regards to the above (in addition to the multiple scientific papers, including the WHO, which agree that deliberate manipulation by whichever means has been ruled out). The quote by Collins is

WP:PRIMARY, but appears to be in agreement with prior assessments and other papers (cited multiple times here and at other pages) that the favoured hypothesis is zoonotic origin, and that the lab leak is unlikely although not ruled out... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 18:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like I misread Collins' statement. But there are several other quoted scientists who have not ruled out creation by humans. For our purposes, I think that's enough to not list an engineered virus as "misinformation". You won't find accredited scientists saying that the 5G phone network theory bears further study, for example. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not when we have papers in quality scientific journals which explicitly describe such claims as "fictitious and pseudo-scientific"; ex. [3]

Currently, there are some fictitious and pseudoscientific claims as well as conspiracy theories associated with the Covid‐19 pandemic. Some people have alleged that SARS‐CoV‐2 is of laboratory origin and the result of deliberate genetic manipulation. According to these conspiracy theories, a novel virus is a human‐made biological weapon, not the result of natural evolution and selection.

Accidental lab leak (without manipulation) is "possible but unlikely". Deliberate manipulation? not quite possible, according to scientists... Otherwise, provide relevant quotes from the NYT or other articles: I didn't notice them, although I was going through it rather quickly so might have missed it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: I'm afraid I don't see any scientists in either article you linked directly suggesting investigation into "an engineered virus". From NYT: Despite the absence of new evidence, a number of scientists have lately begun speaking out about the need to remain open to the possibility that the virus had accidentally emerged from a lab, perhaps after it was collected in nature, a lab origin distinct from a creation by scientists. The closest I found was this, which again falls far short of "COVID was likely the result of GoFR": Whether or not an investigation uncovers the source of covid-19, Lipsitch says, he believes there needs to be more public scrutiny of laboratory research involving viruses that have the potential to spread out of control. “It’s not all about whether a lab accident caused this particular pandemic,” he says. “I’d like to see the attention focus on the regulation of dangerous experiments, because we’ve seen what a pandemic can do to us all, and we should be extremely sure before we do anything that increases that probability even a little.” If you see something I missed, please quote it. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether a gain-of-function origin is likely, just whether it's possible. As for whether anyone prominent thinks it's possible: it's not totally clear, but it appears that way. A lot of the recent press reporting seems to revolve around this May 2021 open letter in Science magazine, which talks at length about a lab leak possibility, without specifying whether that means it was engineered there or not. But there certainly are quotes, like the one you found from Marc Lipsitch (one of the signatories), that show that some people are not ruling it out. There's also this paper, which I just found, which states that "the amount of peculiar genetic features identified in SARS-CoV-2′s genome does not rule out a possible gain-of-function origin". It's published in Environmental Chemistry Letters - I don't know whether that's peer-reviewed or not. And it's a scientific paper and not a media source, but if the purpose is just to clear the low bar of whether this view should be considered fringe or not, maybe it's enough. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a credible journal (no relevance to the field of virology or infectious diseases or biology), likely not a peer-reviewed article (as the journal implies, it`s a "letter"), published by non-virologists and the like ('independent researchers' with no degrees...) who are members of a Twitter group which has consistently been spreading misinformation about this (some of its members have also engaged in the bullying of scientists). Also cited a grand total of zero times by other (actual) scientists, so likely not to reflect a widespread position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The bullying is irrelevant, of course, but if it's not peer-reviewed, then that's a problem. Still, I think there's enough evidence that some of the open letter signatories are willing to entertain the possibility. Besides the above quote, there's also Ralph Baric, another signatory, who here is quoted as saying that, while he “personally believe[s] in the natural origin hypothesis,” he thinks further investigation is merited, presumably into an un-natural origin. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether a gain-of-function origin is likely, just whether it's possible. I feel like we're too wrapped up in this detail, which is best left for the Investigations article. Instead we should be asking ourselves if the paragraphs, as currently written in COVID-19 misinformation#Virus origin theories, give the impression that standard Gain of Function research is implied in intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines or not. I don't think they are, but I'm up for suggestions if you disagree. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammatically speaking, I think the presence of that comma in the sentence directly implies that the only theories about an engineered virus involve intentional release. Even without the comma, though, mentioning these theories before mentioning the "manmade virus, accidental release" theory is certain to mislead some readers. Much better (and more straightforward) would be listing the theories considered plausible first (presumably in decreasing order of plausibility), then moving on to the "misinformation", instead of interspersing the two. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Much better (and more straightforward) would be listing the theories considered plausible first (presumably in decreasing order of plausibility), then moving on to the "misinformation", instead of interspersing the two. That is currently the case on the article:

From natural zoonosis, to accidental escape, to conspiracies of a bioweapon. I see two possible improvements. 1. An alternative hypothesis under investigation is that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the course of standard research, although most virologists consider this to be unlikely. 2. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered for the purpose of being released, although this possibility has been ruled out by genomic analysis according to the World Health Organization. Either or both would help clear up the distinction between "genetic changes during legitimate research" and "modification with malicious intent". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems like we've achieved some rough consensus here, which is great. As to the exact wording, I made some changes to the article; feel free to make any additional changes there, I would say. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I've put the wording suggested by Bakkster. The alternative made many incorrect statements. For example, what the WHO found unlikely was an accidental lab leak, the wording made seem as though what they had found to be unlikely was lab leak of a GOFR virus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, you just beat me to it. IMO, any discussion of GoFR specifically as a viable possibility would belong in

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, not here. We should only discuss it in relation to verifiable misinformation regarding it. This was, I thought, our consensus above. Namely, the wording in the course of standard research or similar, as most of our quality sources don't make distinctions between GoFR and other laboratory procedures, only between bioweapon development and accidental release. Bakkster Man (talk

) 16:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking to improve the section

For instance, the US politicians listed in the first sentence no longer seem to have as reliable sources pointing towards their being disinformation. Instead, we've seen some walking-back of the language used at the time by media to describe their positions.[4] So while there's sourcing to suggest some press coverage was misinformation by inaccurately and/or prematurely dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory', I expect there are also concrete examples of politicians sharing misinformation that I'd like to replace the current broad statements with.

Any other examples would be greatly appreciated as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely the pivot (but not outright change of mind) of Fauci should be included. Like other scientists and the media you pointed out, Fauci originally dismissed it but has recently said it's a possibility and called for further investigations. Currently, the page only reports the initial dismissal from 2020, but his more recent attitude should be included for fairness. Eccekevin (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This really gets to the heart of what misinformation is. IMO, changing perspectives as scientific knowledge advances shouldn't be categorized as misinformation. That's just the scientific process. We should be reserving the article for misinformation relative to the scientific understanding at the time (ie. inaccurate claims about current research) and active disinformation (which can overlap with the first). This is why I lean more towards starting with the precise examples of US politicians were some of the early proponents of the theory of an accidental lab release of the virus, including Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, as well as then-President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo which were actually misinformation, before identifying the scientific information at the time which it was in contrast to.

Particularly in the context of the second paragraph in the section, where the misinformation was arguably the other way (misrepresenting the theory as conspiracy), it would be weird to use out of date reporting that might be more accurately described as misinformation itself (ie. contemporaneous reports stating Tom Cotton was 'promoting a conspiracy theory', from sources which now refer to the perspective as legitimate albeit unlikely). I'm concerned we have a major

WP:V the claims of misinformation. I've actually talked myself into the BLP concern being big enough that that paragraph should be nuked pending examples. Bakkster Man (talk

) 14:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@

talk • contribs

)

@

Yan Li-Meng example, but we should at least discuss whether US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also heavily implied that SARS-CoV-2 has anthropogenic origins is a sufficient citation for misinformation relative to the WHO's statement that it was "extremely unlikely". We may conclude it is, or find a better source to cite, or conclude his statements were opinions reasonable enough not to classify misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk

) 15:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Her words were not put in wikivoice.

talk

) 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@

Alexbrn

: Right, which is why I didn't remove the sentence with her citation.

My concern was with US politicians were some of the early proponents of the theory of an accidental lab release of the virus, specifically that being 'proponents of a theory' was implicitly considered "misinformation" by being on the COVID-19 misinformation article. We need to be more explicit on what they said which was misinformation. Otherwise we're going to fill this section up with individuals who dismissed the lab theory last year, and anyone who changed their perspective as new science was published, and I don't think that's a maintainable model going forward. See Eccekevin comment above, did Fauci spread misinformation last year regarding the lab leak? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Self- Facepalm Oh bum. The diff was showing funny and it looked like this was removed! Silly me!

talk

) 15:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized that too. Bad diff, no cookie! No worries. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of adding back the sentence that was removed just now. The fact that those politicians made those statements is fact, and citable. I don't think

For the record, my concern isn't that none of these people spread misinformation. In fact, I'm quite confident at least some of them did. My concern is that I believe our citations were insufficient to make such a claim, at least in wikivoice. I'm firmly in agreement that we should add back in whatever we can reliably, verifiably, and neutrally cite was misinformation. Best case would be with citations post-WHO Report. For instance, The Hill citation later in the section casts aspersions on Trump's claims that To me it was obvious from the beginning but I was badly criticized, as usual. Now they are all saying ‘He was right.’ Thank you! which would be a good starting place. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guest2625: "If the quotes are relevant, put them directly into the article - the "not possible to rule it out" bit is already present a sentence later, anyways". You haven't addressed this concern. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In general Wikipedia should be a summary using editors' own words. Creating a "scrapbook effect" of verbatim quotations strung together is to be avoided except where strictly necessary (e.g. when the wording/idea is so utterly distinctive it cannot be newly-summarized without misrepresentation).

talk

)

I have to admit, this brings to mind an old audio clip I heard many years ago, where someone took a Ronald Reagan speech, where the original intent was along the lines of "don't do drugs", and strung various sentences together to make it sound as if Ronald and Nancy enjoyed getting high every night (which I assume is false). I guess my point is that this is a rather absurd but real example of why stringing together quotes is inherently problematic, even leaving aside copyright concerns. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I just saw an article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on the COVID lab leak hypothesis. This follows on scientists calling for investigation of the lab leak and analysis in a WHO report. Clearly, this is not a FRINGE theory the way that "caused by a meteor" or "caused by the Jews" is a Fringe theory. And the topic of a lab leak is clearly notable enough for stand-alone coverage, whether or not it happened. I intend to restore COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis as a stand-alone article in the near future; however I certainly will not restore the February revisions, as much of the 52KB of content there is problematic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. This is the problem we are getting into again - any stand-alone article would be undue weight - the topic can be covered here and in

investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is the place to do so - then if and only if it gets to be too big or too long, it can be split into another article carefully for ARTICLESIZE reasons. But no, it still shouldn't be a standalone article at this time, but I have stated that it likely merits discussion of the investigations, without giving the theory any credence whatsoever, on that page. And yes, it is fringe - because though you can find scientists who are screaming about it, very few are actually saying it's credible - the vast majority are saying "we need to close the door on the theory by investigating and disproving it" - which is not saying "we think the theory is potentially viable". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!

) 02:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No. When multiple US Presidents both Democrat and Republican, as well as senators and major media sources like the Washington Post and New York Times are openly calling for investigations into this and actually walking back the conclusion that it's misinformation, the people calling to make a standalone objective article on it are not the ones giving it improper weight. You are. The one who is declaring that it's wrong despite those investigations and concealing it in a minor section of a fringe "misinformation" page. EGarrett01 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an argument that instead of a stand-alone page,

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 should be the target of that redirect; there certainly should be more than 3 sentences on the topic at that page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν

) 02:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with "more than 3 sentences" as long as someone is crafting them to be due and not give more credence to the theory than it should have (virtually none). I think a retargeting of the redirect is a good idea, but would suggest that also the section for the "lab leak" investigations should have a hatnote to this article for further reading. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've duplicated 3 paragraphs of content from here to

Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Wuhan_lab_leak_story, and plan to spend the next hour or so expanding that section. If it turns out well and nobody has objected, I will then re-target COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and some similar titles. I will need a hatnote along the lines of "this section is about scientific research into the lab leak theory. For theories based on political motivations, see COVID-19 misinformation"; any idea how to word that? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν

) 02:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This is going to take far more than 1 hour. A careful observer will note that none of the sources I mentioned in my initial comment would meet

WP:MEDRS for scientific evidence regarding a lab leak; apart from "people with credentials are talking about this" I will not use them. It will take some digging to get to more reliable sourcing, presuming it exists. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν

) 02:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been trying to find time to do this, but I haven't had the willpower to do it after the everyday hassle of trying to stop people calling it the "truth" on here... Now that hopefully the disruption has subsided more of us can find some time to help you - but you're right that the biggest hassle is trying to find actual MEDRS for bio-med information. Obviously primary sources can be used for some of it (ex: the WHO calling it the "least likely" can certainly be sourced to them directly) but the meat of it that needs worked on needs MEDRS and they're few and far between and hard to find and digest. Regardless, your willingness to work on expanding the coverage of it in the investigations article is to be commended. I recommend trying to keep the "people with credentials are talking about this" to a minimum - maybe one or two sentences - as the more of those are included the more it makes it look like more than it is. The scientific consensus is still against it and while I agree (and haven't ever intentionally said it is) it isn't a fringe theory, it's still a theory which is against most of the scientific consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This is why splitting the "scientific investigations" from the "conspiracy theories" is necessary. Arguments based on a furin cleavage site may be scientifically meaningful, yet the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is just about the last place I would expect such an argument; this "Editorial" in Springer's Environmental Chemistry Letters is the other article I've found but has some bizarre co-authors and may not be peer-reviewed. Arguments based on evidence of a Chinese government coverup are not scientifically meaningful, but may be relevant for a misinformation page where it is important to describe the conspiracy theories. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As the position statement of a major health body, there's reason to say that the WHO study is MEDRS. Particularly since it's in agreement with other MEDRS sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:力. It's great to see someone interested in the science of the origin of Covid-19. Here is an MD approved review article from May 2021 going through the different possible origins of SARS2, including the possibility of transmission in the laboratory from a human cell line. The review article is titled: On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Did Cell Culture Experiments Lead to Increased Virulence of the Progenitor Virus for Humans? --Guest2625 (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In Vivo is the journal of the "International Institute of Anticancer Research". That would place their expertise in

WP:REDFLAG says that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, not unrelated journals. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 13:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to treat the article as "junk", on the other hand I would not use it to source certain technical claims, such as the likelihood of mutations at the furin binding site. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Suggestion #5 for an in-progress update to the origins summary, let's not duplicate effort if we can avoid it. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What about the potential for article about lab leaks in general?

Lab leak

currently redirects here, but there's been many past incidents.

• https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/nov/21/it-was-a-total-invasion-the-virus-that-came-back-from-the-dead
• https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly-pathogens-escape-lab-smallpox-bird-flu
• https://www.businessinsider.com/5-terrifying-times-pandemics-escaped-from-laboratories-2014-7
• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/05/the-non-paranoid-persons-guide-to-viruses-escaping-from-labs/
• https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Escaped-Viruses-final-2-17-14-copy.pdf (published by the
  Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
  )

— Goszei (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

When multiple, independent strands of evidence leads to a conclusion, then in terms of truth-truth, the conclusion is likely true. If someone finds a specific near-ancestor from which zoonotis likely occurred, I give anyone permission to ping me and tell me how wrong I was. But it's unlikely. Now in terms of Wikipedia-truth, the lab leak hypo should be treated under

WP:FRINGE/PS as an Alternative Theoretical Formulation, which describes it perfectly. Adoring nanny (talk

) 23:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is an article about misinformation. It needs to cover what that misinformation is, who is spreading it, what their motivations and MO are, etc. Any content about a legitimate "hypothesis" or any investigation belongs at the relevant article - not here. I have reverted
  talk
  ) 05:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  Their edit really didn't remove any information or add any, it was primarily reorganizing it and removing duplicative information (we don't need to cover the WHO report in its entirety, really all this article should say is that they had a report considering it "extremely unlikely"). I agreed with all of their edits and I recommend you discuss specific problems with them here instead of just undoing them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  In particular I object to the upgrading of "unfounded speculation" to "speculation", and the removal of the description of how the proponents operate from the Hakim source. I'm neutral on the reduction of detail about the WHO.

  talk

  ) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We have to be mindful of the difference between Wikipedia reality and actual reality. I don't think we can say in article space that the lab leak hypothesis is well supported, at least not as of today. From a look-at-the-evidence point of view, the evidence is there. From a follow-Wikipedia-policy point of view, it isn't. I've written this up as an essay at WP:LABLEAKLIKELY. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. The evidence is not there. Click on the green box that says "Sources" above, read the sources, then come back and tell us that you now understand that you were wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Improvements to article content can always be made. However, the facts remain that there is (at this time) no evidence presented in support of this theory, and authoritative sources say the same, and thus a portrayal or insinuations saying anything other than that in Wikipedia articles is a non-starter and does no service for our readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

On this note, I think we can be honest and say that MEDRS is mostly used as a tool to chuck out bludgeoning and sheer persistence by SPAs abusing crappy interpretations of cherry-picked news sources for POV pushing purposes.

WP:BESTSOURCES apply, and we want to use our best sources for giving the authoritative consensus on the matter. MEDRS follows as an example of BESTSOURCES, but it isn't the only example; as I said earlier, if we had a renowned investigative journalist/paper doing a detailed, evidence-based exposé, then I would support that being in articles even though it may not be classed as "MEDRS". I know power to be a good editor, so I'm excited to see what they come up with. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 13:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers and journalists are not reliable for biomedical content, and especially not for anything

talk

) 13:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

if we had a renowned investigative journalist/paper doing a detailed, evidence-based exposé, then I would support that being in articles even though it may not be classed as "MEDRS". If it's non-science info, then that's exactly what

WP:BESTSOURCES

says we should do. Lots of examples where this is important on the various COVID-19 pages, nobody is saying no news sources ever.

But I'd argue this also means that a investigative journalist's expose is among the

WP:RS. Bakkster Man (talk

) 14:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Just no. Alexbrn is correct about problems with journalism on medical topics. Even some journalists who go on to do in-depth book-level research eventually come to this conclusion as well. The problem is that journalists for the most part are simply not qualified to evaluate a lot of this, and the conventions of journalism often involve picking and quoting from experts to show different views, without actually weighing those views according to evidence.

MEDRS is not just a subsidiary of BESTSOURCES, it is in many ways a very different set of RS guidelines compared to the rest of Wikipedia, and for good reason. There are a lot of aspects of medicine where it is very easy to misunderstand or misrepresent various things. Even good-faith editing can go astray very easily. MEDRS isn't just for bludgeoning SPAs, it's an essential guide that is used on all WikiProject Medicine articles. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS isn't about 'everything to do with medicine' or even 'all WikiProject Medicine articles'. It says so itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I am un-reverting; I made three mostly unrelated changes and it is unclear in the edit summary which of them Alexbrn objects to. Based on the talk page, I will restore the (in my view excessive) description of speculation as "unfounded". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Changes I would like to make today:

• I would like a more recent source on the speculation that certain genetic signatures in COVID suggest it was produced through gain-of-function research. This is a fast-moving field, ideally there should be a source from 2021.
• We should discuss somewhere the research whether the outbreak started at the Huanan Wet Market (as initially reported in early 2020), or elsewhere in Wuhan.
• Claims about a "Chinese coverup" are conspiracy theories, literally: they allege that the Chinese authorities in Wuhan are conspiring to hide the origin of the virus. We absolutely cannot use primary sources to describe this, and I have not yet found any good secondary sources investigating alleged Chinese coverups. If I find a neutral secondary source that explains why people are claiming there is a cover-up, I will add a paragraph to the article.
• There are various "open letters" about this, a cursory investigation suggests they generally have both bona fide virologists as well as some people I would consider FRINGE researchers. I plan to leave "open letters" out entirely; we will have enough "some people say" without them.

There's also more cleanup needed for the split I started to do yesterday; nobody appears to have explicitly objected to the suggestion that legitimate research into lab leaks should be in a different article-section than Epoch Times politically-based speculation. I'm not 100% sure how to do that split, if you have opinions please suggest them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

So long as anything in this article stays focussed on misinformation, as described in high-quality sources. In it not our job to dig out what we (editors) think is misinformation, let alone to sit in judgement of whether it is or not true.

talk

) 15:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made a change to

• May be a conspiracy theory, but it is notable enough to have a separate page about. This is mostly a political controversy. Hence it should be separated from the scientific stuff described in page
  Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. My very best wishes (talk
  ) 02:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, that's by definition a POVFORK at this time - there's not enough independent information to form a new article about. Maybe there will be in the future (similar to Vaccines and autism), but at this point we also need to consider the fact that there's already too much disruption on this issue and that people here can't deal with the pages we have that are related to this - no need to add another. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think there are enough sources: see above, and one can simply make a Gogole search for "Wuhan lab leak". Speaking about POV fork/sections, I would argue that the current way of presentation as COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story is improperly biased because this is not just an obvious misinformation (to be included to the page), but rather something theoretically possible (even though a very low probability), which needs to be investigated just to make sure it did not happen, but the Chinese government prevented any really independent investigation and hides something. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support to standalone article, because given statements by
  WP:POVFORK --Almaty (talk
  ) 17:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This article was just updated to distinguish the conspiracies and misinformation from the legitimate inquiries we have

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, rightly pointing to it being the minority perspective)? Bakkster Man (talk

) 20:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• We don't want another attempted POVFORK. Community consensus was to redirect the article and delete its draft.[6] Meanwhile, the
  talk
  ) 17:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC
• Ironically, the best argument for a separate page for the "lab leak" hypothesis would be as a notable failed and long-discredited hypothesis, along the lines of
  geocentrism or creationism. Otherwise it deserves mention in the COVID misinformation article, the origins article, and the main SARS-COV-2 article as minor mentions of due weight. We have an article on the origins of the virus, why would we need another article just for one hypothesis that our best MEDRS citations are calling "extremely unlikely"? Hyperion35 (talk
  ) 22:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support standalone article. Massive coverage of this, whether you believe it true or not doesn't matter. It deserves its own article. Dream Focus 14:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)