Jump to content

Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. (RfC, February 2021): There is no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a "conspiracy theory" or if it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". There is no rough consensus to create a separate section/subsection from the other theories related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021): How a disease spreads, what changes its likelihood to spread and mutation information are, I believe, biomedical (or chemical) information. But who created something or where it was created is historical information. [...] Sources for information of any kind should be reliable, and due weight should be given in all cases. A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories.
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021)
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. (RfC, December 2021): Should the article include the sentence They have dismissed the theory based in part on Shi's emailed answers. See this revision for an example.[1] [...] Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... - it is obvious that there is clear consensus against including this.
  8. (RFC, October 2023): There is a consensus against mentioning that the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy announced in 2023 that they favor the lab leak theory in the lead of this article.
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)
  10. In the article COVID-19 lab leak theory there is no consensus to retain "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism" in the lead. Neither, however, is there a consensus to remove it from the lead. (RFC, December 2024).

Last updated (diff) on 19 March 2025 by Just10A (t · c)

Lab leak theory sources

[edit]

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
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!


David Quammen's Breathless

[edit]
Reference accepted as a valid secondary source per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Neutrality concerns were brought up regarding its use in the lead of this BLP; further discussion is possible on the corresponding talk page. 2804:18:963:B9BA:B586:DD28:A457:B5B (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Much of this story is told by science journalist David Quammen's superb book Breathless. Quammen reviews both the details and the larger story and I think the book would be best considered as a secondary source. -Darouet (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not RS; part of P. Daszak’s positive engagement strategy. 2804:7F4:323D:855B:C9C:99B7:1F2B:491A (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source? 2600:4040:5E5F:BA00:4C92:2421:24A6:21E2 (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Not source, but evidence that the reference is potentially biased due to lack of distance between author and subject. Should be enough for an editorial decision about using or not a reference. 2804:18:965:8AD1:153D:BC8D:5552:DDFB (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could be useful for filling details, yes. Bon courage (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not a place for books written with the goal of recovering the reputation of disgraced scientists. You can maybe use that in your GSoWpedia, if you’d like. There are enough sources that Wikipedia considers reliable and that already support your views (even if they should not be trusted blindly because science, as a human activity, is also subject to failure). We don’t need non neutral comments and impressions from a partisan book clogging up this article. 2804:7F4:323D:855B:C9C:99B7:1F2B:491A (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find this last comment somewhat incomprehensible. GSoWpedia? What is that? What evidence do you have that Quammen wrote the book with the goal of recovering the reputation of disgraced scientists? This is unwarranted at best, grossly insulting at worst.
Bon courage, Quammen notes that Peter Daszak was the victim of frequent threats and accusations, so I added that [4] to his wiki page, using Quammen as a source. -Darouet (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Improving the encyclopedia – nice! The IP can just be ignored. Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: the reference is not neutral: Quammen is a well-regarded and widely published writer about viruses and natural history, but he has grown too close to his sources, as many science writers do. and Then comes the remarkable revelation that Quammen has known Daszak for many years and that “he is a friend of mine.” Too bad the reader is given this pertinent information only on page 294 of the book. No wonder almost everything Quammen has written until that point is an attempt to get Daszak off the hook for failing to supervise the ultra-high-risk work he was funding in alarmingly low-level safety conditions at the Wuhan Institute of Virology., was written by a friend of Daszak’s: My friend, Peter Daszak, who’s president of EcoHealth Alliance in New York, […] and is part of a strategy promoted by Daszak himself to clear his reputation: see under Positive engagement strategy (source: FOIA’d evidence, his todo list). This is like the old trick politicians use: endorsing the release of those self-endearing books written by sympathizing “journalists”. So this is not a reliable source, it has a clear COI and is biased towards a key subject in the Origins of Covid discussion. Using that as a reference for an encyclopedia is unwarranted at best, grossly dishonest at worst. 2804:7F4:323D:8BA8:4FD:30CD:F191:517B (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea what "GSOWpedia" was either (and apparently 2804 had no interest in explaining). Some searching revealed that it's a reference to Susan Gerbic, who created a "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" (GSoW) group to "unite editors to become more skilled at adding skeptical content" to Wikipedia.
So basically 2804 is accusing you of being part of a WP:CABAL. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to answering for the contents of your own posts. I haven’t given you power of attorney and your categorical statement about what I meant with my words is not only inaccurate but also irrelevant. What I meant with my statement is that the ends don’t justify the means; if Darouet really believes in the appropriateness of that reference, then argue for it instead of pushing COId, biased content as a way to sustain a narrative aligned with his POVs. GSoW is just an example of how having an agenda, no matter if it is for the good or for the bad, is harmful for impartial writing. We should edit based on reliable sources and not on reputation management books. 2804:18:966:196A:F485:10CF:AAC2:DBB0 (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to dictate what I'm allowed to say. And the entire "you can't read my mind" argument is farcical. When you insinuate someone is behaving like a group with an "agenda," expect to be called out for it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not dictating anything, I am simply saying that I can fully address and explain the contents of my replies if requested. I didn’t address it at first because there were other, more relevant issues at hand. Also, I am not obliged to give thorough answers to an editor who refuses to engage in a discussion brought up by themselves regarding the use of a particular reference, and then, while there is absolutely no consensus, ignores the opinion of an editor (encouraged by another one) and goes to another even more sensitive, BLP article and includes a statement in wikivoice based on such reference. My insinuation was given in that context, just to clarify. In any case, all of this is diverging from the discussion. I would appreciate it if other uninvolved editors, such as you, could give us their opinion regarding the suitability of such reference in this article as well as in the Peter Daszak one. Thanks, 2804:18:966:196A:F485:10CF:AAC2:DBB0 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is explicity supposed to be not half-way to Crazy Town, as your usage of the word "neutral" seems to imply. See WP:FRINGE, WP:CHARLATANS and WP:YWAB. Skeptics are on the side of science and of the facts and painting them as somehow sinister is what those people do who believe in far-out things that have been, or are in danger of being, refuted by skeptics. By saying the things you do, you are essentially shouting "I want WP:FALSEBALANCE!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hob. I know skeptics are on the side of science and their work is very much appreciated. However, one cannot blindly believe that the scientific establishment is a perfect, idealistic haven where truth and honesty always prevail, especially in situations in which science itself is clearly concerned with the political outcomes of their own research results. Skepticism is a valuable quality to any good scientist but it should not only be directed to quackery and clear nonsense. Serious and sound scientific results are (and should be) under constant questioning by scientists and by uncompromisingly defending whatever is claimed as “science” and ridiculing and dismissing other theories, especially when they seem to be gaining traction and “science” hasn’t yet provided a definitive and broadly-accepted answer, one needs to be careful not to be unfair. In any case, and as I discussed with @Darouet, I am not seeking to give prominence to the lab leak theory over natural zoonosis or to go against the current scientific consensus, especially on mainspace. If, however, editors such as you, @Bon courage and @HandThatFeeds are happy with using an impartial book written by a self-declared, close friend of a person under BLP, as the sole reference to claim in wikivoice that that person became a frequent victim of criticism, accusations, and threats, obscuring research into the Origin of SARS-CoV-2., in the lead of such BLP, and see no clear incompatibility with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia BLPs, then I must accept, respect and move on. 2804:18:1908:E9F4:D854:240A:B0DD:385E (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I find this BLP angle entirely opaque. Our guidance on BLPs is to use RS to source statements about them. That's what using this book is doing - sourcing statements about a BLP to an RS. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIASED says When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, […] 2804:18:1908:E9F4:D854:240A:B0DD:385E (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one cannot blindly believe that the scientific establishment is a perfect, idealistic haven where truth and honesty always prevail Then it's a good thing nobody said that. Which leads to the question why you mention a position nobody advocated for.
This discussion is about whether to use a specific source, and another IP starting with 2804 argued against it using conspiracy rhetoric involving skeptics, accusing them of being "COId and biased". Which usually means they disagree with fanciful and absurd ideas the accuser wants people to not disagree with. Hollow rhetoric about liking skepticism in principle does not do anything here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is incomplete

[edit]

Unless I'm missing something, this article is missing important information from reliable sources. In particular, we do not mention that BND in 2020 and the CIA in January of this year have supported the lab leak hypothesis. The COVID-19 lab leak theory article covers this in some detail, and that level of detail is likely not appropriate for this article, but this article should at least say a bit about it, since it's a very likely question that many readers will have when coming to this article. Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole section here on the" lab leak theory" which summarises the main article, and hyperlinks are a thing. The selective quotation of rumours from spy agencies would be undue here (as it is in the lede of that detailed article). It may have excited the press and social media but didn't really move the knowledge needle. Bon courage (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It may have excited the press" is one way to look at it, but it isn't the right way to look at it. "It has been widely covered in reliable sources" is the right way to look at it. So I find that line of argument unpersuasive to say the least. It is precisely in the section on the lab leak theory where this information should be included, and an adjustment to the lede is also warranted. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, we've already discussed this matter and come to a consensus. There's an article on that topic, there's no reason to expand it here, regardless of whether or not you find the argument "unpersuasive". — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BC, a great deal of this article content currently reads like a piece of journalism. If that is the purpose of the article, to record the happenings concerning the search for the origin, then it does not serve the reader to exclude some of these items which come from the news.
But you are correct to say these items do not "move the knowledge needle", they can't because we really do not have a good idea why they are taking these positions without engaging in original research. We do have some good sources characterizing the intelligence agencies opinions: they are an unknown, they do not make their evidence and reasoning open for scrutiny by others. They cannot be a part of the scientific debate on the origins, but the seeming wish is to incorporate them as if they do and in opposition to our best sources. This also does not serve the reader.
This section follows an oft repeated pattern on the two articles. We should "mention" something widely covered in "reliable" (news) sources because it supports lab leak. Continuing discussion quickly devolves into useless opining as seen below. I think the great weight of P&G support that your conception of the article definitely should come first. Journalistic content can however provide some value to the reader. WP:NOTNEWS is pretty much a useless and naive guideline and doesn't provide much help. Do you think we could incorporate both conceptions of what the article should be by providing a clear demarcation for the reader? Maybe create "In the News" or "Timeline" sections as a way to include the journalistic content so it is clearly separated from the encyclopedic content? fiveby(zero) 10:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we create a "In The News" section, regardless of what we call it, we will have newish editors come in every time there is a blip in reporting wanting to expand it endlessly. We have been seeing this in the lab leak article for a prolonged period now. The current amount of prose dedicated to the lab leak is sufficient. If we want to update that then we should do so in a manner that doesn't amount to a net increase in prose, being extremely mindful of what we do put in because it should be offset with removal. To me this is the only way we could meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT given what review articles from MEDLINE-indexed scientific journals have to say on the matter. TarnishedPathtalk 12:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Science vs journalism does not appear to be the issue. A report from the Académie nationale de médecine is also excluded, even from the lab leak article. - Palpable (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales, we dedicate a full paragraph to the lab leak theory, explaining why scientists view it as highly unlikely, and we direct readers to the full article on the topic. It's not reasonable to ask that we repeat the statements of spy agencies in such a small space. -Darouet (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, as you correctly point out this article is not regarding the lab leak theory. This article is about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and as others above have already pointed out there is a full paragraph already dedicated to the lab leak. Per the source analysis provided at WP:NOLABLEAK any further dedication of this article to the lab lead theory would be WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPathtalk 08:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The “argument” that "this article is not regarding the lab leak theory" but rather "about the origin of SARS-CoV-2" overlooks a key point: the lab leak theory is a widely recognized hypothesis about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The title and scope of the article inherently encompass all major theories explaining how the virus emerged, including the lab leak hypothesis. Yet, despite this, a few editors consistently block well-sourced content related to the lab leak theory, dismissing it as "an unlikely scenario" without conclusive evidence to justify that stance.
This approach is increasingly difficult to defend. The lab leak theory isn't a fringe notion-it's been extensively covered by reputable mainstream media outlets and referenced in scientific discourse, with some experts considering it a plausible explanation. Given that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains under active investigation, with no definitive consensus, excluding or downplaying this theory undermines Wikipedia's core principles of neutrality and comprehensive coverage. Readers deserve a balanced presentation of all significant hypotheses, not a filtered version shaped by subjective judgments.
To maintain the article's integrity and usefulness, it should fairly include the lab leak theory alongside other explanations, supported by credible sources. This would reflect the complexity of the ongoing debate and allow readers to assess the evidence for themselves, rather than having one perspective arbitrarily sidelined. ItIsAlwaysThere (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has his November 2022 Robert F. Garry source [5] and apparently thats about it. Short: Africa, funding, unlikelyness, funding again and O-linked glycans. Alexpl (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ItIsAlwaysThere refer to WP:WEIGHT. Per WP:NOLABLEAK the very best sources consistently state that zoonotic origin is most likely. The lab leak conspiracy theory is straight up WP:FRINGE. One paragraph, in an article which is not directly about the lab leak conspiracy theory, is more than enough coverage.TarnishedPathtalk 11:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOLABLEAK is some editors private collection of stuff and not an official site. Dont use it like one. Alexpl (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not WP:NOLABLEAK is policy is immaterial if it has effectively analyzed the sources. It's providing guidance. That guidance is good. You saying "yeah but we don't HAVE to follow it," doesn't change the quality of the guidance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using a preselected set of sources provides excellent guidance for sure - but doesnt help with any article. Alexpl (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. It's especially frustrating that prolific and established editors are outright calling it a fringe theory (including in this thread!) when there's no consensus for that. A few very active editors treat anything related to the lab leak like a conspiracy theory and people who disagree are being ridiculed and dismissed as if they are all crackpots. This is not Wikipedia at its best.
The fact that lab leak has become a political issue among conservatives in the U.S. does not mean readers are best served by throwing away normal Wikipedia processes. That's all I'd really like to see. If some users truly believe it is a fringe theory and want to press that, they need to go the normal route with RFCs and we need more participation and input from experienced editors who don't frequent these pages. Ymerazu (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymerazu please do not WP:STRAWMAN other editors in this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 21:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You declared lab leak a conspiracy theory and fringe *in this discussion*. Ymerazu (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymerazu, you wrote:

... people who disagree are being ridiculed and dismissed as if they are all crackpots.

No one in this conversation has ridiculed or dismissed anyone as a crackpot.
You've previously been warned for this type of behaviour on your user talk. This behaviour will not be continued to be tolerated. TarnishedPathtalk 23:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since coming here I have been accused of sockpuppetry at least twice, maybe three times, (and nothing happened to anyone casting aspersions against me) so I guess I should be used to these kinds of accusations by now.
To my point, the current consensus is that "There is no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a 'conspiracy theory' or if it is a 'minority, but scientific viewpoint'".
When people come to these discussions with good faith suggestions on changes to the pages, like in this thread, and then established and prolific editors like yourself declare that the lab leak is a fringe theory (again, like in this thread), despite the current consensus being undecided, that is dismissing editors as supporting a fringe theory.
My suggestion, again, is that people follow normal Wiki process as I understand it which is to change consensus with RFCs. It's actually completely wild to me that it hasn't been brought to RFC since 2021, and an admin reviewing disagreements on the page even recently suggested that there could be more consensus building along those lines. Ymerazu (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a previous RFC has been unable to determine consensus on whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a 'conspiracy theory' or if it is a 'minority, but scientific viewpoint' does not preclude me or any other edtior from stating that it is a conspiracy theory and making arguments from that basis. There is sourcing to that effect and I am entitled to make arguments which are supported by what I consider to be the best sourcing.
Again, no one in this conversation has ridiculed or dismissed anyone as a crackpot. As per your being taken to WP:SPI that is really none of my concern. Stop attempting to put words into other editors mouths and accusing them of things they haven't done. It will not be tolerated. TarnishedPathtalk 00:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind being taken to sock puppet investigations because I am not a sock puppet as it will routinely reveal, I suppose. In fact, that's the preferred path. When people accuse me on talk pages or elsewhere, that's not as nice. As to the implied threat here, I doubt I will come out on top if brought to review a second time as a newish editor, so I'd genuinely rather you not. Take care. Ymerazu (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I want to push back because I don't think leaving this unsaid is constructive to building an encyclopedia.
I did not say "in this conversation" nor did I say you could not hold to your beliefs that the lab leak is a conspiracy theory. I said that declaring the lab leak a fringe theory as a general response to many comments on these talk pages was dismissive of good faith editors. And I absolutely did not name you in particular.
Discussions on the covid origins pages are often not amicable and dismissive language is routinely used against good faith editors. I can't imagine anyone who has read these pages even for a brief period would disagree with this. Editors I won't single out here have been brought to admin review multiple times for exactly the behavior I'm talking about above. Ymerazu (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said that declaring the lab leak a fringe theory as a general response to many comments on these talk pages was dismissive of good faith editors.
Well that statement is incorrect. Arguing in accordance with what the very best sources say is what we should be undertaking as much as possible.
More broadly I don't understand why you would think that bringing up real or imagined slights from other editors in other discussions is at all useful. TarnishedPathtalk 23:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymerazu You point to the lack of local consensus that the lab leak hypothesis is inherently a conspiracy theory. However, the lack of such consensus cannot imply (1) that lab leak conspiracy theories do not exist, nor does it require (2) that editors must not refer to lab leak allegations as conspiracy theories on this Talk page. You appear to be making assertions and expressing concerns about the behaviour of other editors. but what you propose does not follow from this lack of local consensus.
Also, you appear to be neglecting another point that has repeatedly achieved local consensus, documented as: The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. Presenting the origins of Covid-19 as though it were the subject of competing but equally plausible explanations would appear to run afoul of that consensus, at least unless we were to adopt the structure, "The consensus of scientists is X; however, many politicians and intelligence agencies assert Y". So it seems that unless Talk consensus determines that the consensus of scientists has shifted, or we reach a consensus to "relativize" the scientific findings on the matter - unless the community decides to do one of these two things, the broad changes that some editors seek in this and other related articles will continue to be against consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is getting derailed. The lab leak idea does receive coverage in this article, proportionally to its acceptance in published scientific literature. If the section were to be expanded, there is zero chance that statements made by spy agencies in the United States or Germany would be included there. -Darouet (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im glad someone has said it. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2025

[edit]

Second sentence under 'Biden Administration':

"Mirroring concerns raised by the Trump administration, National Security Adviser..." advisor is spelled wrong GBAxSP (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 13:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&oldid=1293978686"