Talk:Peter Daszak/Archive 1

Archive 1

CBS story on Wuhan Institute of Virology

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-coronavirus-vaccine-researcher-covid-19-cure-60-minutes/
Trump administration cuts funding for coronavirus researcher, jeopardizing possible COVID-19 cure
An American scientist who collaborates with the Wuhan Institute of Virology had his grant terminated in the wake of unsubstantiated claims that COVID-19 is either manmade or leaked out of a Chinese government lab.
60 Minutes
Scott Pelley
May 11, 2020

Peter Daszak: The breakthrough drug, Remdesivir, that seems to have some impact on COVID-19 was actually tested against the viruses we discovered under our NIH research funding.

But his funding from the NIH, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, was killed, two weeks ago, by a political disinformation campaign targeting China's Wuhan Institute.

On April 14, Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz claimed China's Wuhan Institute had, quote, "birthed a monster."

Matt Gaetz on "Tucker Carlson Tonight": The NIH gives this $3.7 million grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, they then advertise that they need coronavirus researchers. Following that, coronavirus erupts in Wuhan.

There never was a $3.7 million U.S. grant to the Wuhan lab. But, the falsehood spread like a virus, in the White House, and without verification, in the briefing room.

Reporter in White House press briefing: There's also another report that the NIH, under the Obama administration, in 2015 gave that lab $3.7 million in a grant. Why would the U.S. give a grant like that to China?

President Trump: The Obama administration gave them a grant of $3.7 million? I've been hearing about that. And we've instructed that if any grants are going to that area – we're looking at it, literally, about an hour ago, and also early in the morning. We will end that grant very quickly.

--Nbauman (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Science magazine article on Wuhan Institute of Virology

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6491/561
NIH move to ax bat coronavirus grant draws fire
Meredith Wadman, Jon Cohen
Science 08 May 2020:
Vol. 368, Issue 6491, pp. 561-562
DOI: 10.1126/science.368.6491.561

The unusual 24 April move occurred shortly after President Donald Trump alleged—without providing evidence—that the pandemic virus had escaped from a Chinese laboratory supported by the NIH grant, and vowed to end the funding.

“This is a horrible precedent” and “the most counterproductive thing I could imagine” given the work's relevance to understanding the current pandemic and preventing futures ones, says Gerald Keusch, a former director of NIH's Fogarty International Center who is now at Boston University. Other researchers note that work done on the canceled grant allowed testing of the antiviral drug remdesivir, which is showing promise in treating COVID-19.

For 15 years, the grant's principal investigator, EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, has collaborated with Shi Zhengli, a leading WIV virologist, to study bat coronaviruses.

--Nbauman (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"zoonotic disease outbreaks like that of COVID-19" - contested

The article regarding Peter Daszak contains a statement that he researched on "zoonotic disease outbreaks like that of COVID-19". But this does not show the full picture: Even the WHO commission which visited Wuhan in spring 2021 could not rule out that the origin is not zoonotic (basically means a lab escape). Some scientists - I linked 2 articles - even have the opinion that a zoonotic origin is extremely unlikely considering the furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction in the SarS-CoV2 virus genom sequence.

Whatever the trueth is, my opinion is that it is therefore very incorrect not to mention that the zoonotic origin is contested.

This should therefore not need an escalation for a separate dispute resultion. PeterSweden (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging in discussion. Per WP:BRD, I suggest you self-revert your changes until the discussion has reached a consensus.

On Wikipedia, article content needs to be verifiable (WP:VERIFY) through reliable sources (WP:RS). Sourcing requirements for health-related content are stricter (WP:MEDRS). A random paper on Researchgate is not sufficient.

Please supply a source that satisfies WP:MEDRS. Quoting WP:MEDRS: Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there are no doubts that COVID-19 is a zoonotic disease, even if it escaped from a lab. My very best wishes (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The stuff with the furin cleavage site is pure nonsense. See the excellent, recent paper in Infection, Genetics and Evolution (full citation at WP:NOLABLEAK), which explicitly refutes this:

This hypothesis was mostly motivated by the fact that this furin cleavage site is unique to SARS-CoV-2 among all Sarbecoviruses (Andersen, 2020; Coutard et al., 2020). However, the supposedly engineered sequences were simply natural features (Liu et al., 2020c; Andersen, 2020; Hao, 2020; Othman et al., 2020). Furthermore, naturally occurring polybasic furin cleavage sites have been described in other lineages of coronaviruses such as MERS-CoV, HKU1, HCoV-OC43 or IBV (Andersen et al., 2002; Huang et al., 2006; Yamada and Liu, 2009) and is a common feature in viral envelope glycoproteins (Hao, 2020; Dimitrov, 2004). The natural occurrence of furin-cleavage sites in various viruses has been documented for long. We provide a list of 50 selected references as Supplementary Data. Some linked the presence of the least preferred CGG codons in the SRAS-CoV-2 furin cleavage sites as a “proof” of engineering. A codon being least preferred does not mean it should never exist and this CGG codon present in SARS-CoV-2 is for instance present at a higher rate in MERS-CoV (Chen et al., 2017; Hou, 2020).

As for the rest, the controversy and misinformation about the lab leak is UNDUE and off-topic here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent additions: Fauci testimony, Daszak interview

Hi everyone. I've reverted recent additions from an IP. The addition about the Fauci testimony is original research as the information is gleaned from a C-SPAN video covering a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing. The Daszak interview is sourced to a podcast on Youtube which is not a reliable source. For us to include the content, we would need reliable sources reporting this and it would need to be clearly WP:DUE. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see where the IP editor is going. But we must also be careful and make sure to represent all significant points of view. We certainly can quote from interviews or parliamentary hearings transmitted online. I'd be inclined to rework the quotes but still try to keep them in, because if genuine, they add to the biography in my view.

For the avoidance of doubt, personally I have no opinion about the origins of various viruses nor do I care about it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Robby.is.on, Kashmiri. Thank you for the comments. It is my first time contributing to Wikipedia and I am learning the rules as I go. I found the original source of interview video with Daszak, which is published from MicrobeTV (who conducted the interview). https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-615/ Hope it is okay with everyone and I will resubmit. Please let me know. I registered an account (kenlaw2 ) on wikipedia so that further communication is easier.

Here is the modified text, please advise.

In Feb 2020, The Lancet published a statement by a group of scientists led by Peter Daszak condemning “conspiracy theories" suggesting that COVID-19 might be a lab accident. In May 2021, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci in his testimony to the Congress , EcoHealth Alliance received a grant from NIH, and subsequently shared a sub-grant of approximately $600,000 with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Previously in an interview with TWiV , Daszak described the possibility of manipulating coronavirus for vaccine development: "coronaviruses are pretty good ... you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily ... the spiked proteins drive a lot about what happens." In the same interview, Daszak went on to highlight the work by Dr. Ralph Baric at UNC, who collaborated with Shi Zhengli, to "insert into the backbone of another virus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlaw2 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for creating an account, Kenlaw2, you will find that that makes communication easier.

Please have another good look at WP:OR. I don't think MicrobeTV passes as any of the types of reliable sources mentioned in the "What counts as a reliable source" section. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I realized that MicrobeTV is a podcast, which may not be a reliable source as defined in the guideline. The video is considered as an original primary source (under WP:OR), and one criteria for inclusion is "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." My text is only a selected transcription of the interview which can be independently verified by others with access to the primary source.

Please advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlaw2 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Interpreting something you see somebody say in a video is textbook original research. If you can find a reliable source reporting on what has been said in the hearing, it's fine. As I wrote above: For us to include the content, we would need reliable sources reporting this and it would need to be clearly WP:DUE.

Please sign your comments using four tildes: ~~~~. Wikipedia:Signatures has detailed information. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly inserting content without consensus is edit-warring which will get you blocked from editing, @Kenlaw2:. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

okay -- I thought I was following your advice to provide original research, but it turned out I cannot use original research. Kenlaw2 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. In my initial post at the top I was indicating the reasons for my initial revert so I hadn't thought it necessary to spell out that OR is not allowed. Also, WP:OR, which I have linked to on multiple occasions, is titled "Wikipedia:No original research" and the first sentence there is "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.". If you haven't had a look at WP:OR yet, now would be a good time. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

References

A new addition: Controversies

Since controversial aspects of a number of Daszak's actions in 2020 and 2021 have now been widely reported by reputable sources, it seems we are failing to fulfill the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia if this page does not include mention of this. I would like to add that I have no view myself on any of the hot-button COVID issues driving parts of this debate (e.g. the value or danger of gain-of-function research, the culpability of individuals or states with respect to the outbreak of COVID-19, etc). I am happy to discuss and modify, supplement, or amend this section however the community of editors sees fit.Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Publius In The 21st Century, thanks for your good faith contribution. It has some issues though. In particular, WP:CSECTION and WP:SCAREQUOTE. I suspect it will get reverted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit. The article by Wade is not a useable source for anything, especially not for BLP claims. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments and to RandomCanadian for your very helpful edits - the new version looks quite reasonable to me? Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus required

Please note that I have placed this page under a consensus required restriction. There is a notice at the top of this page, as well as in the page editnotice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Wang and Daszak

Linfa Wang and Peter Daszak collected and published on Nipah virus in 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6302578/ Charles Juvon (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

What point are you making with this statement? This talk page is for changes to the article. Not for pure discussion of the subject.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS linking Daszak with Wuhan lab and suggested addition

As my edit has been reverted, I'm leaving here multiple WP:RS for future additions of this aspect to this article. WP:BLP doesn't apply with extensively sourced content. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

My suggested addition is below. Of course this can be trimmed or expanded if WP:DUE is an issue.

Daszak has collaborated with Dr. Shi Zhengli, the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology with efforts to trace SARS viruses to bats after the 2003 epidemic. His organization administered more than $100 million in U.S. federal grants to fund overseas laboratory experiments, including those performed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

After he was approved as the sole US member of the World Health Organization investigative effort into the origins of COVID-19, its independence was questioned by Miles Pomper, a co-author of an expert guide to investigating outbreak origins published by the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, saying that the team was "seriously compromised by the process used to choose investigators [...] In particular, the choice of Dr. Daszak, who has a personal stake in ensuring current Chinese practices continue and who is a longtime collaborator of a scientist at the center of the investigation, is likely to taint its results.”

In April 2020, Peter Daszak emailed Dr. Anthony Fauci, praising him as "brave" for seeking to debunk the lab leak theory.

The Lancet letter did not disclose to readers that Daszak's group had funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab, and at least three of those signers would later say a laboratory accident merits consideration. In one leaked email, Mr. Daszak wrote that the document should “not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person." The letter stated "We declare no competing interests."

The Lancet later issued an addendum, inviting the authors of the letter, specifically Daszek, to report competing interests.

Journalists Jeremy Page, Betsy McKay and Drew Hinshaw wrote in The Wall Street Journal regarding the WHO investigation team, of which Daszak was a member, that "It soon became evident to foreign officials and scientists tracking the mission that the team's itinerary was partly designed to bolster China’s official narrative that the government moved swiftly to control the virus". In this fashion, National Review called Daszak the "favorite American COVID-19 expert of Chinese-state-run media" and said "the Chinese government was really insulting Daszak by allowing him and barring other American scientists; it’s a de facto declaration that they perceive him as a pushover or an easy mark."

Following the WHO's release of its global study of the origins of the COVID-19, the Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus observed that "Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation" concluding that "I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough."

Loganmac (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This content is very strongly sourced with some of the highest quality sources (eg WaPo, CBS News, NBC News) available. There is therefore no BLP problem including impeccably sourced content. The issue would rather be UNDUE, but here, again given the strong sourcing, seems to be fine for inclusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that the Lancet have published their much awaited addendum [12] and Daszak has recused himself from the Lancet Investigation [13], it looks like Loganmac’s proposal meets WP:BURDEN and I do not see any WP:BLP problems. RandomCanadian should discuss changes here constructively, instead of reverting without discussion. I am sure Novem Linguae, Forich, Bakkster Man, Publius In The 21st Century, Darouet, Sgnpkd and Mikehawk10 can help address any concerns. CutePeach (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(slightly off-topic) Is it only me or Daszak's "disclosure" in The Lancet indeed reads more like a frantic attempt to clear the EcoHealth Alliance and shift the blame to "US agencies" than a standard academic disclosure of competing interests? As much as I frankly don't give a damn about the origin of the virus (it's utterly irrelevant for public health now), I find the published "disclosure" disingenuous. For instance: work in China includes collaboration with a range of universities and governmental health and environmental science organisations, all of which are listed in prior publications, three of which received funding from US federal agencies as part of EcoHealth Alliance grants or cooperative agreements – is a manipulation, because these Chinese institutions received grants not from any "US agencies" but directly from Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance (even if the Alliance was funded by NIH).

Otherwise, I have no problems adding the proposed text, although I suggest to check the wording for MOS compliance (remove all Dr., Mr., check quotation marks, etc.) and for compliance with WP:BALANCED so that the section is not one-sided. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• No time to argue in depth this morning, but I must note my surprise at editors being all up in arms about a mere link to the misinformation article at Nicholas Wade, but seemingly being all fine with massive allegations of a COI here... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: While I recognize WP:VOLUNTEER is important, I'd suggest it's poor form to rollback an edit with "The WP:ONUS is for you to get bloody consensus", and then not make a reasonable effort to engage in that consensus building. There are ways to be WP:CIVIL while following policy.

@Loganmac: That said, I agree with RC's policy concern. I'd like to direct you to WP:BLPREMOVE. Getting consensus here first is the right way to go about it (WP:BRD), especially for a BLP. If this talk section can't accomplish that, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard would be the next step, before adding the content back to the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: appreciate the ping. My $0.02 follows. I'll note, anywhere I mention conflict of interest (COI), take that to mean perceived or actual.

1. No idea why the third paragraph with the Fauci emails is here. Feels shoehorned and unrelated to the content relating to a COI.
2. Fourth paragraph, link/cite 'the Lancet letter' and better identify it, other co-authors changing their opinions isn't notable here, and more neutral language on the COI disclosure. I'd like to see a more explicit source link about the leaked email being relevant before adding back in. Suggested rewrite, combining with following paragraph: A February 2020 Lancet letter co-authored by Daszak about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 did not disclose that Daszak's group had funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab. The Lancet issued an addendum in June 2021, in which they inviting the authors of the letter to update their competing interest disclosures. Daszek was the only author to do so.
3. I'd highly recommend nixing the National Review source as being wildly POV. Especially in a BLP. If insistent on keeping it, name the author of the piece, rather than "National Review called...", as they have a significant range of editorial views that shouldn't be ascribed to the organization (not uncommon to see two NRO authors arguing amongst themselves in opinion columns).
4. Final paragraph also feels incredibly shoehorned in, reads like it's just there to push the "lab leak happened" POV. If the section is about a Daszak COI, then this is irrelevent. Arguably SYNTH as well, since only one of the two sources mentions Daszak, and includes the following Still, more information is needed, which Daszak said he expects the Chinese government to provide. I shouldn't need to explain why citing a source in a BLP to imply doubt cast by a 3rd party, without mentioning the person the article is about expressed similar sentiments in the same cited source, is highly problematic.

Hope that helps. Very reasonable topic to include, but "Just the facts, ma'am". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too impressed with National Review. I took it out of my Yahoo News after reading some (in my opinion) poor articles from them. I don't trust them at all. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Fits a few particular worldviews, and willing to 'say it like it is' (hence the headline starting "China apologist"), which leads to some concerns when it comes to WP:BLPBALANCE. Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. I don't think an editorial in NR is likely to be either a 'reliable secondary source' for a broadly held opinion, and is more likely to be a 'small minority' that shouldn't be included in this manner. And to reiterate, we definitely shouldn't ascribe Jim Geraghty's opinion to that of the National Review overall. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that suggested text is not good. Saying that, the subject has been involved in the political controversy, and this must be described. Just hiding the controversy, as in present version, is against WP:NPOV. Here is the essence of it. He did collaborate for many years with Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and her lab (and she received some small funding from the NIH through Daszak organization). There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. When the "lab leak" claim has been debated, he became a very vocal supporter of the lab and dismissed outright the idea of the leak in numerous interviews. And again, there is nothing wrong with it, but it must be stated (with refs) on the page. Now, he became a member of the WHO team sent to investigate the origin of COVID-19 in China. The team self-admittedly did a poor job in China because of the stonewalling by Chinese government. Daszak was accused of a COI. All of that must be clearly stated on the page. Note that having COI is not a crime, but just that, a COI. This is just something regularly disclosed, and some people with officially disclosed COI, such as connections with drug companies, are still taking part in work by the FDA, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Moreover, the controversy must be prominently described on this page because this is something he is mostly known for. But, the description should not paint the subject in a negative light. The only really legitimate criticism here if that he would had to refuse to go as a member of the WHO team to China. I did not read a lot about it, but he seems to believe that his participation there was just fine. That too should be stated on the page. Whatever RS say. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  As far as I understand, one issue is that he had a COI and so should have refused to be part of the investigating team. Another issue is that he failed to disclose his COI in the original Lancet paper. This is all related to his conduct as an academic; not to the virus origins. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bakkster Man's edits. Myverybestwishes is also on point. i'm a bit rusty on WP:BLP so I'll need to wait before editing this page. Forich (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I quickly fixed a few things, but it is difficult to reuse much from the suggested text above because it is written as an accusation/polemics. But something must be added about the criticism of WHO team and his alleged COI, just properly written. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I made some additional updates. I wanted to add some comments on the concerns about the WHO investigation appointment, but I couldn't confirm the above quote attributed to Miles Pomper. I considered the second WSJ one, but it didn't seem to be quite as direct, and more a critique of the conclusions than the appointment. Anyone who can confirm the WSJ Chan piece includes this quote? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I made additional copyediting for clarity and in order to improve the logical and chronological flow of the narration – mostly shifting paragraphs around, and a single paragraph merge. In the process, the "Media coverage" section was merged into Career and COVID-19 sections as the coverage tended to be closely related to either. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Miles Pomper is quoted by The Wall Street Journal [14], there's a second quote there that I didn't include. Loganmac (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The suggested article seems like a big improvement to me. If there is one thing I would add to the current articles it is to note that Daszak effectively organized/wrote both the Lancet article and the NAS (?) letter referenced in it. 01:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I see way too much discussion here about "interpretations" or personal takes about what news say, instead of sticking to what the WP:RS say. According to WP:PERENNIAL National Review is fine when attributed. I added the Faucci line because I saw it in two articles I was reading, there's plenty more [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] while the location in the paragraph may be awkward, this is a fact associated with Daszak in WP:RS. "Moreover, the controversy must be prominently described on this page because this is something he is mostly known for. But, the description should not paint the subject in a negative light" This is the most common misuse of WP:BLP. If the reputation of a person in WP:RS is overwhemingly negative, Wikipedia must reflect that per WP:DUE. Of course that doesn't mean to make a hit piece, with unfounded accusations in Wikipedia's voice, like I said due balance is always needed. Final paragraph also feels incredibly shoehorned in, reads like it's just there to push the "lab leak happened" POV. I have no interest in establishing one way or another about the lab-leak theory, again, I go with what WP:RS say, the WHO stated it's the "less likely"[23], less likely doesn't mean impossible, we just don't know. In any case, that was beside the point, the point that source was making is that the WHO head saw the investigation of the hyphotesis as "requring further investigation" and not extensive enough, again this was quoted extensively [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] [37]. The fact of the matter is that Peter Daszak has been involved in suspected COI on more than one ocassion (with The Lancet letter and the investigation), and this has been noted EXTENSIVELY in WP:RS. To include this, we must follow what these sources say, not make our own interpretation to whitewash his reputation. Per WP:BLP Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources, and per WP:SYNTH Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources Loganmac (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi all - it looks like lots of very good work has been done, and I don't want to cause unnecessary complications here. I am, however, curious to know what happened to a sentence I had initially written and that RandomCanadian had deemed worth keeping:

According to emails obtained by FOIA, Daszak had communicated with colleagues drafting and signing the letter to "conceal his role and creat[e] the impression of scientific unanimity;"[26] when asked about his role in this and other potential matters where Daszak might have a conflict of interest "an EcoHealth Alliance spokesperson said on behalf of the organization and Daszak, 'We have no comment.'"[26]

I'm wary of putting too fine a point on this for fear of coming across as a partisan for or against some position on one of the hot-button issues here (I'm not, and that isn't why I'm here), and I don't want to derail productive movement forward. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the page as it currently stands misses something important by suggesting that the subject of the page has attracted criticism solely on account of a) his alleged conflict of interest, and not also b) his having taken extra steps to conceal the alleged conflict of interest in the way the letter would be presented to the world at large. If we are trying to record accurately the criticism the subject of the page has received (as reported by RSs), it seems to me that both a) and b) should be included (and of course, for the sake of balance, the response the subject of the page's representatives offered when presented with the allegation). Nor do I think this is merely pedantic; b) is quite an important allegation where questions of public trust in--and debates about the politicization of--science are concerned. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree Loganmac (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Likewise, agree. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Publius In The 21st Century: I also agree. Didn't realize this was trimmed, but agree it's a worthwhile mention. I added it back. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Loganmac: According to WP:PERENNIAL National Review is fine when attributed. Which part of that page do you take to say this? I'll note that WP:RSP says this about NR: There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. I'll also point out what I said above. It's not that NR can't be used, it's that we should be very careful if people insist we use it. I think the criticism can be presented similarly, using a source that's less potentially problematic. The WSJ piece by Chan, for instance. Only reason I didn't add it (as I said above) is I'm not a subscriber, and am not comfortable adding info to a BLP article without being able to read it myself.

This is the most common misuse of WP:BLP. If the reputation of a person in WP:RS is overwhemingly negative, Wikipedia must reflect that per WP:DUE. Of course that doesn't mean to make a hit piece, with unfounded accusations in Wikipedia's voice, like I said due balance is always needed. And, as you'll note, my edits included those criticisms. Not perfect, I'm sure, but it's not like people are trying to hide the criticisms. I believe I presented them as DUE and NPOV.

I have no interest in establishing one way or another about the lab-leak theory, again, I go with what WP:RS say, the WHO stated it's the "less likely", less likely doesn't mean impossible, we just don't know. In any case, that was beside the point, the point that source was making is that the WHO head saw the investigation of the hyphotesis as "requring further investigation" and not extensive enough, again this was quoted extensively. The question isn't whether it's a well sourced statement by itself, the question is whether it's applicable to the Peter Daszak article, or if it's WP:COATRACK content.

The fact of the matter is that Peter Daszak has been involved in suspected COI on more than one ocassion (with The Lancet letter and the investigation), and this has been noted EXTENSIVELY in WP:RS. And these are precisely the items I added to the article, with more neutral language, which is possibly why they were built off of rather than being reverted. Neutral language is only a whitewash compared to POC-pushing.

Per WP:BLP Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Returning to the National Review quote, Is Daszak "commonly described" by reliable sources as "the favorite American COVID-19 expert of Chinese-state-run media", a "pushover", and an "easy mark"? The first WSJ piece's quote of "has a personal stake in ensuring current Chinese practices continue and who is a longtime collaborator of a scientist at the center of the investigation, is likely to taint its results" is not only less contentious and more precise, it's in a more reliable source and better matches the broad criticisms. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

References

"The move was widely reported to be politically motivated"

I just checked one of the sentences that says "EcoHealth Alliance's project funding was "abruptly terminated" on April 24, 2020 by the National Institutes of Health. The move was widely reported to be politically motivated". The first source (Nature) says But as Peter Daszak, the head of the small non-profit organization — EcoHealth Alliance in New York City — found out in early July, the funding can’t be used unless the organization meets what he says are absurd conditions. The demands, detailed in a letter from the NIH, are politically motivated, he says., the second source CBS doesn't even mention the word "politically" or "motivated". Neither does USA Today, the closest I saw was CBS saying But his funding from the NIH, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, was killed, two weeks ago, by a political disinformation campaign targeting China's Wuhan Institute without any detail. This is the most baffling instance of misinterpretatin of sources I've seen, if anything this "politically motivated" quote is from Daszak himself, is this "widely reported"? Loganmac (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Keen eye, thanks, will edit it in a sec. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"...has authored or contributed to over 300 scientific papers"

The sentence "As of 2020 Daszak has authored or contributed to over 300 scientific papers and been designated a Highly Cited Researcher by the Web of Science. In addition to citations in academic publications, his work has been covered in leading English-language newspapers"" it cites NYT and The Scientist. The New York Times doesn't mention the Web of Science, nor his supposed "highly cited researcher" status (if he is, there ought to be better sources), nor the count of his scientific papers. The Scientist source is an opinion/interview article which nonetheless doesn't mention any of the keywords cited above. What's also baffling about this citation, is that The New York Times piece was written by Peter Daszak himself. The sentence here on Wikipedia appears to be copied verbatim from him webpage [38], which in turn was also copied on the Covid 19 comission website [39], and I couldn't find any secondary source to his claims. I can't quite tell if this is a case of WP:CITOGENESIS now, because when I search that sentence, I find it verbatim everywhere as part of his bio, which seems to be sourced from his website. Loganmac (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that the information is, unambiguously, correct, and a simple google search allowed me to cite this directly from the relevant page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Pubmed lists him as a (co-)author of 220 publications[40]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No significant objections from me except that it sounds like promotion. There is a lot of other more important content on the page. This is just excessive. I occasionally remove things like that from pages. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone show some precedent for listing number of publications for other prolific researchers? Otherwise I agree, it could be borderline puffery. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI and AN/E cases

There is an active case relating to the above topic submitted by Loganmac at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RandomCanadian and Peter Daszak. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There is now a pending AN/E case regarding Loganmac and a prior topic ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Loganmac. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

How much coverage should EHA get in the lead here?

I personally believe it should be a big part of the lead, since his connection to EHA is what he's mainly known for. Here are some corollaries: Vincent Racaniello and the ASV; Qu Dongyu and the FAO; Matthew Tirrell and the Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering. In each case, the organization is a primary reason for the notability of the person, and hence the organization gets more 2-3 sentences in the lead. How is this any different?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not about what "we think". This article has to follow MOS:LEADBIO, and especially MOS:OPENPARABIO. It is utterly irrelevant for this biography to tell readers how much money the subject's current employer spends on projects abroad. Similarly, we don't force the reader to read about the revenue, expenses or indeed any projects of Facebook, Inc. in the lead section of Mark Zuckerberg or about the budget of Apple, Inc. at Steve Jobs. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Shibbolethink is asking for consensus on how we reflect WP:PAGs, but I agree that the dollar amount isn't really notable for the lede. It's notable for the below sections on funding grants and their being revoked, but not the lede. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Some elements can be reworked, yes, but much if not all of the subject's notability (the reason he's being criticised for an alleged conflict of interest is because of the previous work between EHA and the WIV...) stems directly from his involvement in his organisation, so I would argue it does deserve a prominent place in the lead, in some way or the other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I actually agree that maybe the specific dollar amount is UNDUE in the lead. But we should at least mention it in the article, and make a reference to EHA's international collaborations in the lead, given how much coverage it's gotten.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

EcoHealth Alliance is wikilinked and anyone interested in minute details about the organisation can easily browse to that entry. Here, it's enough to include a general mention on what EcoHealth Alliance is, and this needs good wording. Firstly, the current description is too long and takes away focus from Daszak to a discussion on his employer's finances and activities, which goes against MOS. Two, it's unsourced: nonprofit non-governmental organization that supports various programs on global health and pandemic prevention is not found in the listed source which only defines it as "an international network of scientists and educators engaged in work to save endangered species and their habitats from extinction in 20 high-biodiversity countries", specifically no mention of "pandemic prevention" or "supporting various programs".

I'd appreciate if RandomCanadian stopped reverting anyone who spends their time to improve this article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing two sentences doesn't take much time or effort. Your comment would also be better if it accurately reflected what I said, which is that the lead could use some reworking. And that it is better if we first work it out here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed just one sentence, and you immediately reverted. How do you expect editors to improve the article? Ask you for permission first? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually the answer to your question would be, as per the notice just placed here, get consensus first.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

DEFUSE PROJECT

In September 2021 the independent research group on the origin of COVID DRASTIC revealed that Peter Daszak had offered in 2018 to DARPA (which refused to fund it) to lead a study integrating the laboratory in Wuhan to test on bat viruses function gains (increasing transmissibility to humans): this is the DEFUSE PROJECT— Preceding unsigned comment added by PYL75 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is old news, and partly inexact, and comes from an unreliable source so nobody cares. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC).

  "Nobody cares" isn't an arguement that should have any place on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.207.232 (talk)

  What should not have any place on Wikipedia is unreliable sources (like the self-published page of a group of internet activists). Hence why I was saying "nobody cares", because, indeed, nobody cares or will care about this unless you can bring a proper reliable source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Update needed

Update to this article needed: The Lancet's inquiry commission was disbanded in September 2021. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

At which point Daszak had been off the commission for months. I am unsure that mentioning the disbanding will inform readers about Daszak. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we be mentioning the latest Lancet article that

Multiple news organizations have called on Peter Dazak to testify under oath about his knowledge of the viral gain of function experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

This includes both left leaning news organizations like the Washington Post and right wing ones like the Wall Street Journal. As well as otherwise sympathetic scientists like Angela Rassmussen . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.207.232 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. These other articles are opinion pieces. One might call them DUE, though. What text would you like to use to include this content?— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

How about informing the readers about what role played in this? Particularly, refusing to share EcoHealth's grant with the commission's chairperson, Sachs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.207.232 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This is all about the committee, and does not appear all that prominently in searches about Daszak himself. See WP:DUE and WP:RSUW.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

References