Talk:COVID-19 misinformation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:29, 10 September 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 misinformation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: 21 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

WikiProject COVID-19 consensus

WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.

General

Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance.

Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020)

For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020)

"Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020)

Page title

COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021).

SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020)

Map

There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020)

There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020)

For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020)

To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Other talk page banners

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Current events

This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

COVID-19 C‑class Top‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine: Society / Pulmonology C‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Viruses C‑class Low‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

China: History C‑class High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Espionage C‑class Low‑importance

	COVID-19 misinformation is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism C‑class High‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics C‑class High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology C‑class Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Media C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet C‑class High‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Asia C‑class High‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Disaster management C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Science Policy C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Omer Benjakob (9 February 2020). "On Wikipedia, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation". Wired. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
Noam Cohen (15 February 2020). "How Wikipedia Prevents the Spread of Coronavirus Misinformation". Wired. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
Renée DiResta (21 July 2021). "The CDC Should Be More Like Wikipedia". The Atlantic. Retrieved 21 July 2021.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic was copied or moved into 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic with this edit on 12 April 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Phrenic490 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lucyc2.

Section sizes

Section size for COVID-19 misinformation (97 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	6,137	6,137
Overview	17,875	17,875
Virus origin	18,366	138,902
Wuhan lab origin	390	27,695
Bio-weapon	10,033	10,033
Gain-of-function research	5,224	5,224
Accidental release of collected sample	12,048	12,048
Stolen from Canadian lab	5,350	5,350
Accusations by China	17,375	17,375
Accusations by Russia	8,468	8,468
Accusations by other countries	16,833	16,833
Jewish origin	53	9,226
In the Muslim world	5,758	5,758
In the United States	872	872
In Germany	1,249	1,249
In Britain	1,294	1,294
Muslims spreading virus	3,604	3,604
Population-control scheme	2,313	2,313
5G mobile networks	24,868	24,868
American scientist selling virus to China	1,803	1,803
Meteor origin	1,218	1,218
NCMI intelligence report	1,783	1,783
PCR testing	5,245	5,245
Symptoms and severity	2,996	2,996
Incidence and mortality	825	32,657
In China	15	9,819
Chinese under-reporting during early 2020	1,866	1,866
Nurse whistleblower	2,753	2,753
Alleged leak of death toll by Tencent	1,810	1,810
Mass cremation in Wuhan	2,480	2,480
Decline in cellphone subscriptions	895	895
In the US	2,393	10,857
Allegations of inflated death counts	3,660	3,660
Misleading Johns Hopkins News-Letter article	4,804	4,804
Misinformation targeting Taiwan	6,772	6,772
Misrepresented World Population Project map	1,061	1,061
"Casedemic"	3,323	3,323
Disease spread	1,315	43,835
California herd immunity in 2019	3,752	3,752
Patient Zero	1,700	1,700
Airborne	4,439	4,439
Surfaces	1,703	1,703
Susceptibility based on ethnicity	6,501	12,844
Xenophobic blaming by ethnicity and religion	6,343	6,343
Bat soup	5,461	5,461
Large gatherings	799	799
Lifetime of the virus	713	713
Mosquitoes	139	139
Contaminated objects	2,489	2,489
Cruise ships as safe havens	6,204	6,204
Breastfeeding	699	699
Sexual transmission and infertility	1,578	1,578
Prevention	1,149	42,084
Hand sanitizer, antibacterial soaps	3,471	3,471
Public use of face masks	12,538	12,538
Alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs	6,809	6,809
Warm or hot drinks	986	986
Religious protection	9,574	9,574
Helicopter spraying	1,449	1,449
Food	2,391	2,391
Vitamin D	3,717	3,717
Vaccines	272	272
Hospital conditions	1,562	1,562
Treatment	553	30,936
Herbal treatments	2,984	2,984
Vitamin C	1,843	1,843
Common cold and flu treatments	2,430	2,430
Cow dung and urine	3,714	3,714
2-Deoxy-D-glucose	2,333	2,333
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions	2,917	2,917
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine	1,625	1,625
Ivermectin	86	86
Dangerous treatments	2,642	2,642
Silver	4,105	4,105
Mustard oil	832	832
Untested treatments	2,817	2,817
Spiritual healing	1,469	1,469
Organ trafficking	586	586
Other	10	15,186
Name of the disease	1,560	1,560
Simpsons prediction	1,043	1,043
Return of wildlife	4,374	4,374
Virus remains in body permanently	305	305
COVID-19 denialism	2,750	2,750
Antisemitism	2,272	2,272
US anti-vax anti-China covert operation	2,872	2,872
Efforts to combat misinformation	2,821	29,169
Social media	7,476	7,476
Wikipedia	2,541	2,541
Newspapers and scholarly journals	2,183	2,183
Podcasts	1,320	1,320
Government censorship	12,828	12,828
Scams	5,908	5,908
See also	266	266
Notes	24	24
References	28	28
External links	2,817	2,817
Total	375,899	375,899

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

Which pages use this template?

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

Lab leak theory sources

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

[edit] ·

Scholarship

For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID

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

[edit] ·

Journalism

For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.

Michael R. Gordon and Warren P. Strobel (20 June 2023). "U.S.-Funded Scientist Among Three Chinese Researchers Who Fell Ill Amid Early Covid-19 Outbreak". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 21 June 2023.

Jonathan Calvert and George Arbuthnott (10 June 2023). "What really went on inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid erupted". Archived from the original on 10 June 2023. Retrieved 10 June 2023.

Mara Hvistendahl and Benjamin Mueller (23 April 2023). "Chinese Censorship Is Quietly Rewriting the Covid-19 Story". Archived from the original on 24 April 2023. Retrieved 30 April 2023.

Sasha Pezenik, Josh Margolin, Kaitlyn Morris, and Terry Moran (18 April 2023). "New report from Senate Republicans doubles down on COVID lab leak theory". ABC news. Retrieved 20 April 2023.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Paun, Carmen; Zeller, Shawn; Reader, Ruth; Leonard, Ben; Scullion, Grace. "Cross-examining the lab-leak theorists". POLITICO. Retrieved 6 December 2022.

Max, Tani. "ProPublica scrambles to check translation in COVID origin story". Semafor. Retrieved 2022-11-03.

Mueller, Benjamin; Zimmer, Carl (27 October 2022). "G.O.P. Senator's Report on Covid Origins Suggests Lab Leak, but Offers Little New Evidence". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 December 2022.

Chan, Alina (3 June 2024). "Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 August 2024.

Kao, Katherine; Eban, Jeff. "COVID-19 Origins: Investigating a "Complex and Grave Situation" Inside a Wuhan Lab". ProPublica. Retrieved 2022-11-03.

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

[edit] ·

Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars

For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.

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

[edit] ·

Opinion-based editorials written by journalists

For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.

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

[edit] ·

Government and policy

Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

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

References

Not just in the United States

In its section about governments trying to combat misinformation by censorship, the article says: In the United States, some elected officials aided the spread of misinformation.

This certainly was the case - but was not limited to the United States unfortunately! For example in my country, Germany, elected officials from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and persons who ran for elections on federral and Land ("state") levels - AfD again, but also Die Basis and probably some other small splinter parties - actively spread misinformation about COVID-19. ObersterGenosse (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. If you have referenced information about other nations' government misinformation, or even better a review of worldwide incidence of such, you could add information from it to this article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, too, but I don't seem to have extended confirmed user status. In Germany, the government luckilly didn't spread misinformation or aid its spread, but elected officials (MdB = Member of the Bundestag) and members of state-level parliaments (Landtag) certainly did. Would references in German suffice? ObersterGenosse (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

German language should be OK. Maybe cite to a link w article translated by eg Google if possible. Source only judged by if a [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:MEDRS]] if required here (not sure). Maybe start w German Wikipedia and see how it goes or do both. Good luck. JustinReilly (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bioweapon idea and WikiVoice

We now have sourcing in the Times of London and the Daily Telegraph supporting the bioweapon idea. Lead paragraph of the Times story[5]: Scientists in Wuhan working alongside the Chinese military were combining the world’s most deadly coronaviruses to create a new mutant virus just as the pandemic began. If one reads the story further, it softens that a bit. But the above is definitely the opinion US State Department investigators, according to the Times. In light of this, I don't think we can any longer say in WikiVoice that the bioweapon idea is a conspiracy theory. I also don't think at this point we should say in WikiVoice that said idea is true. Instead, at this point, we should report the debate, per WP:WikiVoice. However, this article is no longer the correct place to do so. Related discussion at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Sunday_Times_of_London_article. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree at a minimum it’s no longer appropriate to use wikivoice here. JustinReilly (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Murdoch press is Murdoch press. And the Daily Telegraph is demonstrably unreliable on the topic of COVID-19. XOR'easter (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both deletion and changes to voice. Nothing has changed. The evidence points to the Huanan seafood market as the origin of COVID (which is not very close to the WIV), but regardless, claims of a bioweapon is an extraordinary claim that is way off the deep end into conspiracy theory territory, per reliable sources. See thread. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Neither support it, they report it in a way that means they do not actually come down in favour of it. Rather ascribing it to anonymous sources. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Neither of these are the level of high quality reliable source we would need for such an extraordinary claim.

WP:ECREE: Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: ...Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Support, I agree that Wikivoice should not be used to say that bioweapon theories are true. But, by the same token, I do feel the case against them are not supported enough in either WP:MEDRS or WP:Reliable sources to merit use of Wikivoice to say they are untrue (eg “misinformation”, “conspiracy theories”).

Times, Sunday Times, Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph are considered to be four of only eight Quality press newspapers in the UK. More to the point, Times, Sunday Times, Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph are all considered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources told be Wikipedia:GREL.

A very related, but technically separate issue is whether lab leak and GoF/genetic engineering theories should be called “conspiracy theories” or “misinformation” in Wikivoice. I think it’s very clear at this point that they should not. I think a new Talk topic should be opened re this specific issue and I intend to when I get some time. JustinReilly (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot there’s an ongoing extensive discussion (of which I think most of you may be aware) of the ancillary question I brought up on the Talk page of a more specialized article: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory under the Topic “What's the source for the claim - "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis"” (May 16, 2023) JustinReilly (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A number of better sources describe SARS bioweapon conspiracy theories as among the most outlandish, there's no valid reason to remove the current material, especially if the only argument are these sources. —Paleo Neonate – 11:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Wuhan lab origin > Bio-weapon" section, add the following paragraph:

In 2021 the US department of state released a statement alleging that "The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017."

Citation: https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html WatchDogx (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. It also does not demonstrate that the information is WP:DUE and relevant to this article. With a different source, it may be appropriate for the Wuhan Institute of Virology article. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 13:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Alleged leak of death toll by Tencent" entry based on blog post

The New Bloom blog post titled "Taiwan News Publishes COVID-19 Misinformation as Epidemic Spreads" which levies allegations of “misinformation” against the Taiwan News Tencent article is disreputable because it is based on the assessment of a non-existent person. The “former biosciences graduate” cited in the article, “Lars Wooster,” has not publicly published any papers and has no web presence with the exception of the single post uploaded by the blogger Brian Hioe. In addition, the photo of Wooster https://newbloommag.net/author/lars-wooster was AI-generated.

Secondly, Hioe has a track record of harassing and openly attacking Taiwan News for the sake of drawing attention to his blog post cited in this page is a typical example of his hit pieces against the news agency. Hioe has a personal vendetta against the author of the Taiwan News articles in question and has routinely issued defamatory comments against the author on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

Thirdly, the Wikipedia entry states that the author of the original news article defended the authenticity and newsworthiness of the leak in an interview with WION, but fails to properly link to the actual WION interview and instead links for a second time to the same Hioe blog post. The following is the correct link to the WION interview: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2581906558753179.

Therefore, in order to maintain Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and objectivity when presenting information about the Covid pandemic, the attacks authored by Hioe and associated content regarding Taiwan News’ coverage of the pandemic should be removed immediately.

Furthermore, The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-families-should-be-sweeping-graves-now-but-thousands-still-havent-buried-their-dead/2020/04/03/5a6daa50-7234-11ea-ad9b-254ec99993bc_story.html and other media outlets later reported that based on the excess urns sold at crematoriums in Wuhan in early 2020, point to an estimated 40,000 deaths from COVID, consistent with the Tencent leak and mass cremation articles. The Economist in 2022 estimated that deaths from the first wave of Covid in China was as high as 1.7 million: https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2022/01/02/beijing-is-intentionally-underreporting-chinas-covid-death-rate-part-1/?sh=730dea784352. Taiwantruthseeker (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose of the post was to provide the original source of the reports on the data leaks by Tencent, there were multiple Taiwanese media outlets that reported the incidents far earlier than Taiwan News, such as Liberty Times https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/3050613 and New Tang Dynasty Television https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/02/03/a102768360.html. The post in its current state is tainted by Hioe's biased agenda against Taiwan News. There is no reason to list Taiwan News rather than the original sources of the news in this post other than to further Hioe's agenda of denigrating the news agency for personal gain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.235.17 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is hard to understand

The lead section is very detailed about specific points, but it is hard to understand why the subject is notable. It is missing facts such as dates and time frames, the impact, why it is important and who it is important to. I think it needs to provide a general summary and leave out the specifics. Lightbloom (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

From the article's section "Treatment"

Treatment
Main article: List of unproven methods against COVID-19
Widely circulated posts on social media have made many unfounded claims of treatment methods of COVID-19. Some of these claims are scams, and some promoted methods are dangerous and unhealthy. Herbal treatments
Various national and party-held Chinese media heavily advertised an "overnight research" report by Wuhan Institute of Virology and Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences, on how shuanghuanglian, an herb mixture from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), can effectively inhibit COVID-19. The report led to a purchase craze of shuanghuanglian.

The source provided for the last paragraph is here [6]. However, I cannot see from the article why it belongs on COVID-19 misinformation. It does, however, seem relevant to the main article List of unproven methods against COVID-19.

From a cursory read, this seems to be a recurring problem throughout the article. Am I correct in saying that sources should specifically state that the information is (according to the lead) false information, including intentional disinformation, or a conspiracy theory? Lightbloom (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article is very wide (your copied text from the lede truncates it), and include bogus treatments. The 'Treatments' section here is referencing List of unproven methods against COVID-19 as a "main" article, so it should really be just a brief summary of that article. Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should just have a brief summary. The given examples with sources in this section seem to not mention specifically that the treatments don't work, just that they haven't been proved yet or that they are traditional remedies, so listing them here in detail draws a connection that constitutes original research. Lightbloom (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If something 'hasn't been proved' but is offered as a treatment, that's quackery and misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but the sources don't seem to mention it is quackery and misinformation so I think it falls under original research to specifically detail it in COVID-19 misinformation. I provided one example but this looks like a common pattern throughout. Lightbloom (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article states its scope, which is quite wide. Things here should fall in that, but there doesn't need to be 1:1 word matching with this article's title. Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the example I gave constitutes false treatments though. Again, the sources don't seem to state that they don't work, just that they aren't proven, so to list them here constitutes original research. Also, I don't think the scope of the article covers unproven treatments. If that were the case, ongoing medical studies for COVID-19 treatments would be classified under this article. Lightbloom (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In evidence-based medicine the assumption is something doesn't work until shown otherwise, since in nearly all cases treatments cannot be disproven. If something subject to "ongoing medical studies" was offered as an effective treatment, that would be misinformation too. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 175: / Line 175: @@
 :::::The article states its scope, which is quite wide. Things here should fall in that, but there doesn't need to be 1:1 word matching with this article's title. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 ::::::I don't think the example I gave constitutes false treatments though. Again, the sources don't seem to state that they don't work, just that they aren't proven, so to list them here constitutes original research. Also, I don't think the scope of the article covers unproven treatments. If that were the case, ongoing medical studies for COVID-19 treatments would be classified under this article. [[User:Lightbloom|Lightbloom]] ([[User talk:Lightbloom|talk]]) 17:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
+:::::::In evidence-based medicine the assumption is something doesn't work until shown otherwise, since in nearly all cases treatments cannot be disproven. If something subject to "ongoing medical studies" was offered as an effective treatment, that would be misinformation too. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)