Wikipedia

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Latest comment: 11 days ago by 97.91.54.115 in topic Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2024
Learn more about this page


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  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)
  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, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  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. 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)
  8. 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)
  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)

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


Lab leak theory sources

edit
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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!

References

edit

The current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."

It is FALSE. There is (at least one) publicly available paper which proves the contrary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 is an article from 2017 with (among others) authored by Daszak and Zheng-Li Shi (the head of the WIV). "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus".

It contains this passage:

"Construction of recombinant viruses

Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously [23] (S9 Fig). The fragments E and F were re-amplified with primer pairs (FE, 5’-AGGGCCCACCTGGCACTGGTAAGAGTCATTTTGC-3’, R-EsBsaI, 5’-ACTGGTCTCTTCGTTTAGTTATTAACTAAAATATCACTAGACACC-3’) and (F-FsBsaI, 5’-TGAGGTCTCCGAACTTATGGATTTGTTTATGAG-3’, RF, 5’-AGGTAGGCCTCTAGGGCAGCTAAC-3’), respectively. The products were named as fragment Es and Fs, which leave the spike gene coding region as an independent fragment. BsaI sites (5’-GGTCTCN|NNNN-3’) were introduced into the 3’ terminal of the Es fragment and the 5’ terminal of the Fs fragment, respectively. The spike sequence of Rs4231 was amplified with the primer pair (F-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-AGTCGTCTCAACGAACATGTTTATTTTCTTATTCTTTCTCACTCTCAC-3’ and R-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-TCACGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTGACACCCTTG-3’). The S gene sequence of Rs7327 was amplified with primer pair (F-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’-AGTGGTCTCAACGAACATGAAATTGTTAGTTTTAGTTTTTGCTAC-3’ and R-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’- TCAGGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTAACACCCTTG-3’). The fragment Es and Fs were both digested with BglI (NEB) and BsaI (NEB). The Rs4231 S gene was digested with BsmBI. The Rs7327 S gene was digested with BsaI. The other fragments and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) were prepared as described previously. Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously [23]."

^^^^ This is exactly "genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.165.236.120 (talk • contribs)

New Cell paper

edit
Latest comment: 21 days ago32 comments14 people in discussion

The new Cell study [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] definitively proves COVID-19 originated from wildlife, via raccoon dogs at the Wuhan market, and exposes the lab leak theory as a racist conspiracy aimed at blaming the scientific community, scaremongering about gain of function research and vilifying Chinese people. The evidence is conclusive, and it’s essential we update this article now to reflect this consensus and eliminate any mention of lab leak claims as serious science. There are a lot of papers in the top science journals dispelling the myth that this virus 'leaked' from a lab GoF experiment via an infected lab worker. It's molecularly impossible. 103.120.115.2 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it "definitively proves" it, but it moves the science closer to certainty. The thing is though, this new research is really about the (actual) origin of SCV2, and does not bother with any nonsense about lab leaks. We'd really need some decent secondary source (i.e. not just news) making the connection for it to be worth mentioning here. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, this looks like synthesis, we can't say it has been proven until RS say so. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed if it did say "proved", we would immediately have to tag it as pseudoscience. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No it's just the latest red herring pumped out to keep everyone's scent off the trail. The lab leak is all but proven. Scientists initial reaction to COVID was the Furin Cleavage Site looked inserted. And since then we've learned that Ecohealth Alliance had an interest in inserting cleavage sites into Coronaviruses.
That likelihood that that is a coincidence is very close to zero. 212.58.121.54 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your belief is bolstered by rumours spread by conspiracy theorists, but it is still a belief. Wikipedia prefers reliable sources instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not a belief. We have factual and reliable reliable FOI'd sources showing scientists initial reaction to the sequence...
"I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to nCoV where you insert exactly 4 amino acids 12 nucleotide that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function—that and you don’t change any other amino acid in S2? I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature."
The DEFUSE proposal was a factual and reliable source...
"We will analyze all SARSr-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential furin cleavage sites’””°. SARSrCoV S with mismatches in proteolytic cleavage sites can be activated by exogenous trypsin or cathepsin L. Where clear mismatches occur, we will introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in Vero cells and HAE cultures."
It doesn't take much theorising to put those 2 things together. This is damning evidence supporting the lab leak and should be highlighted in the article. 212.58.121.54 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"doesn't take much theorising" ← just the classic conspiracy theorising that multiple sources detail. Scientists considered LL; scientists changed their mind in the light of evidence; science moves on. Wikipedia reflects that as relayed in the best quality sources. Meanwhile both the US and Chinese versions of LL have become calcified into the racist/conspiracists tropes among the believers in their respective nations. We reflect what sources say about that too. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No they didn't change their mind in light of evidence. They have offered no plausible reason for changing their mind so dramatically. 212.58.121.54 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is there any point to this? There are plenty of reliable sources setting out what happened and Wikipedia relays them. This is WP:NOTAFORUM for airing conspiracy theories. Bon courage (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
My point was here in case you missed it... "This is damning evidence supporting the lab leak and should be highlighted in the article" 212.58.121.54 (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it's just LL conspiracist lore, unless of course you have some good RS (of equivalent quality to the sources we already use) stating otherwise. Scientists make mistakes and change their minds all the time. It's called science. For LL however, in contrast ...

While the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear that any can be sufficiently falsified to placate lab leak supporters, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking.

We make this point already. Bon courage (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again in what way is a FOI release lacking in quality? 212.58.121.54 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I struggle to understand how the theory that a virus leaking from a lab specializing in gain of function virus research with international government funding is somehow more racist and vilifying of the people of China than the theory that it leaked out of a filthy wet market selling all variety of esoteric wild animal meats. "Chinese people spread the virus because they eat raccoons and bats" is perfectly acceptable for polite society but "Transnational conglomerates were not transparent about the research they were funding" is a racist attack on the Han people? I'm not even trying to relitigate the page's claims against the theory, I'm just dubious of how the race angle is being leveraged, especially considering the fact that the Western notion of the Chinese eating dogs et. al has always been commonly understood as "racist stereotypes 101". 2601:246:4A80:FE0:BC75:12E7:5EF6:3BC7 (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, and this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand this and appreciate the immediate edit ban, but reliable sources are privileged in cases of reporting material fact, not opinions or moralizing:
such narratives were often supported using "racist tropes that suggest that epidemiological, genetic, or other scientific data had been purposefully withheld or altered to obscure the origin of the virus".[19] David Gorski refers to "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government".[23] The use of xenophobic rhetoric also caused a rise in anti-Chinese sentiment.
The wiki page simply parrots this as definitive reality, but how is this a remotely logical conclusion? How is it racist to suggest that a government altered scientific data? Is scientific integrity an inherent ethnic/cultural trait of the Chinese? Both of these sources, Gorkin and Garry, are biologists -- not journalists or post-structural theorists. There is no reason to include these assertions except as a way to characterize calls for government transparency (both US AND China) as villainous based on fallatious personal opinions. If we must keep it, at the very least give some form of qualifying statement: "Some media outlets/biologists have characterized the claim as ____". This is a clear case of non-NPOV. 50.249.232.209 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The sentence after [23] is not controversial. But I believe the preceding sentences should be toned down or need to find better sources for support. Senorangel (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, no one is doubting there was xenophobic rhetoric, though including it here makes it seem like the lab leak theory was the primary mover of said xenophobia. Personally, i would remove any mention of xenophobia here altogether -- criticizing an authoritarian unelected uniparty government is not xenophobia -- though I understand some mention might be obligatory. 2601:246:4A80:FE0:B026:EE09:813:9C05 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's a major theme in the sources. Evil Yankees bringing their engineered virus to the Chinese motherland is kind of a xenophobic "theory" no? Bon courage (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can't tell if you're trying to be coy or I'm completely misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that the alleged xenophobia was anti-American? Neither the wiki page nor any of the citations nor the last 4 years of media coverage would lead anyone to that conclusion. 2601:246:4A80:FE0:8C71:9796:2BC1:3427 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
In China it was. The page has a US bias in that it's only really considering what the American conspiracists think – though to be fair that aspect has more coverage in the sources. Bon courage (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Am I taking crazy pills? That is not a conclusion that anyone reading the language of the article would come to. Have you ever once heard the term "xenophobic" referring to anti-American thought?
Regardless, even if someone were to make such an esoteric mental leap, this STILL would not qualify as "xenophobic". As was my original point, any "lab leak" theory, be it in the US or China, is a priori an accusation against a bureaucratic body – unless one is to assume the collective subconscious of the Chinese people conceives of the archetypal American ("Yankee") as an elite biomedical researcher/black operative executing a bioweapons attack on a geopolitical rival.
Are you understanding my reasoning here? Can we acknowledge that the reliable sources are not authorities on purely subjective arguments –especially when the argument is so fundamentally absurd that no one with an elementary understanding of political dynamics would organically adopt? The word xenophobic should appear in this article exactly 0 times unless prefaced by some kind of qualifier denoting it as an opinion. 2601:246:4A80:FE0:D51A:B88D:80AA:E4B9 (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The lab leak arguments are absurd yes, but there is plenty of RS commenting on them as a kind of psychosocial/political phenomenon, in which xenophobia is both an informing prejudice and.a result as people are stoked up. This expert assessment and analysis (knowledge) is exactly what Wikipedia deals in. In China the 'theory' is that US undercover agents brought an engineered virus to the 2019 Wuhan Military Games and released it there as an attack on China. We need to cover this; see PMID:37697176. There are also some American LL believers who put the blame on America itself for originating the virus (e.g. Jeffrey Sachs,who we mention). Bon courage (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The consensus among most lab leakers is that the U.S. was at the very least active in the research at the Wuhan lab if not instrumental. I've never heard an argument that doesn't include that detail. It has always been public knowledge that the NIH was funding the WIV from 2014-mid 2020. It requires a lot of willful ignorance to look at such a convoluted geopolitical theory which places a good deal of blame on the US and say "racially motivated".
What "expert" are you referring to? There is no such thing as an "authority" on issues like this. This is my point. The writer David Gorski of [23] is an oncologist! What more authority does he have than anyone to make assertions about sociopolitical phenomena? More than Jeffrey Sachs? The language of the wiki states that an uptick in anti-Chinese sentiment is a result of the lab leak theory in particular, something which has no basis whatsoever in any medicine or science — he is not speaking as an expert in that piece, he is just speaking as a person with an opinion. 2601:246:4A80:FE0:D51A:B88D:80AA:E4B9 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Reliably published WP:SECONDARY sources are the basis of Wikipedia, and the analysis and commentary they contain is the knowledge this Project exists to reflect. Since your contributions here are source-free I think this thread is heading nowhere. Perhaps somebody could close. Bon courage (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here: https://nursingclio.org/2020/06/02/absolutely-disgusting-wet-markets-stigma-theory-and-xenophobia/
Written by UW Madison PhD in History of Medicine. Expert.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10120873/
Faculty from Dept of Psych at USF and Internal Med. at UChicago. Experts.
https://culanth.org/fieldsights/sinophobia-epidemics-and-interspecies-catastrophe
Professor of Medical Anthropology at St. Andrew's
Expert.
Apparently there is no clear consensus amongst medical experts as to whether or not one speculative hypothesis is more racist than the other one.
This wiki article is about a historical event, not the philosophical discourse surrounding its contribution to studies of human tribalism. If you want it to be about that, it needs to clarify that in its language. Mention of these conflicting viewpoints ought to be in the article and all assertions to the contrary to be likewise noted for their equally subjective nature. 2600:1008:B044:87A1:35C8:593C:DB7E:C80 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The first source is a blog; the others reprise the themes we already mention (racist inputs and racist outputs to LL). Yes, this article is about an event – but that event is the hatching and taking hold of irrational conspiracy/theories among sectors of the populations of various countries. Sources treat it as an interesting psychosocial phenomenon and a major example of conspiracist discourse, and so Wikipedia does too. The actual "event on the ground" is summed up pretty quickly in the WP:BESTSOURCES as somewhere between "simply wrong" and "zero evidence to support". So Wikipedia says that too. Bon courage (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
"First source is a blog" Okay? So is Gorski [23], a blog with a whopping 229 shares on Facebook. It is "owned and operated" by a "non profit organization" that exists only in the form of a Wordpress page that hasn't been updated in more than a decade. There is no difference whatsoever in level of credibility or certifications of these two sources. One is mentioned as definitive, the other is not. Why?
2600:1008:B044:87A1:35C8:593C:DB7E:C80 (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
See WP:SBM. Bon courage (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Self published, not peer reviewed. It's a blog.
You do not acknowledge the arguments of the other two sources. They are not in keeping with the claims of the page and from RS. None of the significant minority views in RS are treated with neutrality.
2600:1008:B044:87A1:35C8:593C:DB7E:C80 (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
They are "in keeping". It may be worth covering the adverse mental health impacts LL racism has had on ethnic Chinese in America though. This adds to, not contradicts, our article. We already cover the "Yellow Peril" sinophobia the third source mentions but again, this could be expanded. Bon courage (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
They are talking about the Sinophobia as a result of the wet market theory, not the lab leak. There is an argument against both.
But how could it be true that both contribute to a phobic hatred. It was either the wet market or the lab — at least one is true. If both theories are xenophobic i.e. not based in fact, then whichever ends up being true is xenophobic.
The only difference being that the wet market theory is very consistent with already long held stereotypes of the Chinese people and the idea of CCP backed scientists making bioweapons became a stereotype of the Chinese people (???) overnight by way of media proclamation.
Do you see now why I'm dubious of using the term here?
2601:246:4A80:FE0:82E:4439:9C90:AD5A (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

SARS-CoV-2 is Potentially a Bioweapon

edit
Latest comment: 16 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why have you added a link to the COVID-19 lab leak theory page pointing to Bioweapons as a conspiracy theory? This is the same denialist approach taken in the early days of the outbreak when any discussion of a lab origin was called a ‘conspiracy theory’. The fact is that there is no public information that conclusively proves any of the origin theories—natural, lab leak, or bioweapon—and worse, there is no effort to conduct an independent forensic investigation to find the truth. China and the US have deliberately politicized the issue, precluding any possibility that they will cooperate in an investigation, even though they have spent the last 20 years working together, searching for and experimenting with these pathogens. The Intelligence community states it does NOT know when or how SARS-CoV-2 started. Yet you proclaim without any basis that the suggestion that it is a bioweapon is a conspiracy theory? There is a well-documented conspiracy between the virologist community and the governments of the US and China to make the public believe the pandemic was an act of God (of natural origin) and that no humans are responsible for the deaths of possibly over 40 million people. These parties have worked to prevent any independent, comprehensive investigation and to limit the WHO’s investigation. Yet you do not call these efforts a conspiracy. By stating that any suggestion that the virus may be a bioweapon is a conspiracy theory, you do a disservice to your readers. The publicly available evidence supporting the development and release of SARS CoV-2 as a bioweapon is at least as compelling as any offered in support of any other options. Disparaging this possibility does not lead to truth. It only tries to smear and denigrate it as an alternative explanation which has as much and possibly more evidence to support it, than the alternative theories. Jamescjiii (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because no one has provided any real evidance it was. Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is based upon reliable secondary sources. You have not provided any. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2024

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Under "Intelligence agencies" Paragraph 4 quoted as:

"In June 2023, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified their report on the virus' origins, in compliance with an Act of Congress compelling it to do so.[174] The report stated that while the lab leak theory could not be ruled out, the overall assessment of the National Intelligence Council and a majority of IC assets (with low confidence) was that the pandemic most likely began as a zoonotic event.[175][176] No evidence was found that SARS-CoV-2 or a progenitor virus existed in a laboratory, and there was no evidence of any biosafety incident.[17] Proponents of the lab leak hypothesis reacted by accusing the agencies of conspiring with the Chinese, or of being incompetent.[17] Covering the story for the Sydney Morning Herald, its science reporter Liam Mannix wrote that the US report marked the end of the lab leak case, and that it had ended "not with a bang, but a whimper".[17][176]"

Please change to:

"In June 2023, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified their report[1] on the origins of COVID-19, in accordance with an Act of Congress. The report outlined two plausible hypotheses for the virus' origin: natural zoonotic spillover or a lab-related incident. Four intelligence elements and the National Intelligence Council assessed with low confidence that a natural spillover was more likely, while one agency leaned towards a laboratory incident with moderate confidence. The report acknowledged gaps in evidence and noted China's non-cooperation in further clarifying the virus' origins."

Reason: The original did not have the source of the report and did not fully capture the report's details. 97.91.54.115 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd sure like to link to the various ODNI document (4 total i think?) if they aren't already, but if i recall the June 2023 was the last (source says 4 pages), isn't this the first? (2 pages) fiveby(zero) 00:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can find on their site:
August 2021 https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf
June 2023 https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Report-on-Potential-Links-Between-the-Wuhan-Institute-of-Virology-and-the-Origins-of-COVID-19-20230623.pdf
and the latest one - https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf
I can't find anything related to another report that is declassified. 97.91.54.115 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf
Incorrect. Without the source, the original does not have adequate information and is misleading to the document source. 97.91.54.115 (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1253859647"