Talk:Shi Zhengli/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page needs a "Controversy" section

Currently this page is merely a propaganda page for this researcher, listing all the awards and personal fame, neglecting an ongoing national debate and allegation of her work's improper handling.

Zhengli Shi is a virologist in Wuhan Institute of Virology. Her lab in Wuhan is the only lab in China capturing bats and studying coronavirus derived from bats.

The 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan is now confirmed to root from bats.

There is a serious debate ongoing in China, about the potential involvement of Zhengli Shi's work in the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.

Currently, the wiki page of Zhengli Shi is merely a propaganda page for her personal fame, neglecting the serious debates.

Suggest:

Controversy

In February 2017, in a news article published in Nature, scientists warned that a SARS-like virus could escape a lab set up that year in Wuhan, China, i.e., the Wuhan Institute of Virology where Zhengli Shi serves as the primary virologist, to study some of the most dangerous pathogens in the world.

In February 2020, a debate in Chinese social media alleged that Shi Zhengli's work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) may lead to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak possibly due to improper handling of samples and lab animals. Shi Zhengli rejected the allegations on Chinese social media Weixin.

In February 2020, with Shi Zhengli as a co-inventor, Wuhan Institute of Virology applied for a patent in China for the use of remdesivir, an experimental drug owned by Gilead Sciences, in treating the coronavirus infection. The application was made on Jan. 21 together with a military academy, according to a Feb. 4 statement on the institute’s website. The move revived longstanding concerns about China’s respect for intellectual property rights.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)

DavidGeorge1977. This is an encyclopedia, and not a blog or chat space. Everything we post must be a verifiable statement from a high quality independent source. We cannot use anything from social media. We also cannot use diverse sources to come to our own conclusion (called WP:SYNTH), as you are attempting above. More importantly, when the highest quality sources (we call WP:RS/Ps), like Washington Post debunk a conspiracy theory (several more high-grade sources followed WPO), then we don't carry it as "unproven". However, one of the most serious things to do on Wikipedia is to use a discredited theories/other conspiracy theories to damage the reputation of a living person (per WP:BLP). We only carry "Controversy" sections, when the highest grade sources specifically confirm the controversy is correct and valid. Ironically, we have already seen Twitter to that to Zero Hedge for trying to push that exact theory: CBS. Britishfinance (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The conspiracy is about an intentional utility of the bats coronavirus as a bio-weapon, which is not discussed here. The controversy is about the possibility of the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus was leaked from this researcher's lab, most likely unintentionally. This researcher is the only in China who captures bats and study bat coronavirus, and she is located in Wuhan. There is currently a serious debate ongoing in China, with this researcher being in the center. Wikipedia should have a balanced view, and reflect the existence of this national debate. Besides, amid the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, this researcher tries to profit from it through a patent application on an experimental drug owned by someone else. This should be reflected in a balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

DavidGeorge1977, I have added the Nature and Bloomberg articles to the WIV article and fleshed out some of Richard's early concerns about BSL-4 in China. They don't make any mention of her so we can't use them in her article. Her name may have appeared in some patent application but it is most likely on behalf of the WIV who is trying to work with Gilead to assess it. If Chinese social media is awash with conspiracy theories that she is profiting from this, we can't use it. If a major source (e.g. Bloomberg, Reuters, Washington Post, NYT, BBC etc.), carries a story that she is profiting or other about her, then we can use it. However, for it to be in her article (and not just the WIV article), it needs to properly involve her. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well - she is the lead virologist of Wuhan Institute of Virology (see WIV wiki page). As a matter of fact, the group led by her is the only one who captures bat and studies bat coronavirus. Right now, this wiki page is full of decorations. It needs a balanced view. The image of a super scientist is simply not true. It's nothing more than a piece of propaganda for personal fame and gain. Debates and allegations are neglected. True - China government censors the information and keeps what they want to be seen. But should Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

We have mentioned that she is a lead, and she is on the coronavirus because high-quality sources say so. We can record anything else about her but only if high-quality independent sources explicitly say it. Stuff rumored about her, stuff on blogs etc. cannot work on Wikipedia. China does censor information, but we are not a news agency - for us to use it, it must be from a high-quality source (e.g. WPO, NYT, BBC etc.), that we can quote, and for a BIO of a living person, it must specifically involve the person (e.g we can't try to link someone to a fact by proxy). This confuses many people who come to WP first, but we ourselves are not Bloomberg or Reuters, and cannot be the entity that gives credence to a story – the story (and even the sentance) must be already an unambiguous accepted verifiable fact before we add it. Britishfinance (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

: Chinese bats don't suddenly all fly to Wuhan altogether themselves and cause a coronavirus outbreak. They were brought there. There is a debate ongoing, alleging those bats were brought to Wuhan by this researcher and got leaked. This researcher is fully decorated on this page. Behind the page? Tens of thousands infected, hundreds died. Even more to follow. The questions and voices of millions who believe differently from this page, are unheard, because those voices are on social media, censored, and not credited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That may be true, but until major high-quality independent sources say it explicitly, we can't use it on WP. All we have on this page is what high-quality sources say about her. Major news sources like NYT, WPO, BBC, Bloomberg etc. are hungry for big stories – if this story was proveable, they would be running it. But until it is proved by them, we can't touch it. Britishfinance (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects verified source. I get it. Again, bats don't suddenly all fly to Wuhan and infect tens of thousands. They were brought there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'am not sure you understand how viruses "jump" from bats to humans. Yug (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC) (spoiler: it's not literal reading)

Just to be clear here: I hold a PhD in epidemiology.

What a sad page for propaganda and personal fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Update on Feb 5 2020 by BBC China:

In this BBC China article, Richard H. Ebright, a researcher at Rutgers University who warned about the biosafety of WIV on Nature in 2017 and paid close attention to Shi Zhengli's work since then, said to BBC on Feb 5, 2020: (1) There is no evidence showing the genomic sequence of the Wuhan coronavirus was intentionally engineered; (2) The possibility of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak was due to a lab accident could not be ruled out; (3) The genomic sequence of the coronavirus causing the 2019-2020 Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak is very close to a bat coronavirus species RaTG13, which was collected from Yunnan Province and stored in WIV since 2013.

Also in the same BBC China article, Shi Zhengli asked those who suspected a leak from her lab to "shut *** up" (in Chinese, please read the original article yourself).

I am using Google translate so it's possible something getting lost in translation but the translation I am getting is she said it was natural and swore on her life that it wasn't from the lab with a possible expletive about those spreading rumors about her. Not enough in this article to act on any changes to her article. Though I continue to encourage bringing these sources to the board. Other editors may read it differently. And other sources may bring new information to light. This is an evolving situation. Rutgers will deal with on the lab article, though I believe some of the info is already covered. Slywriter (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The translation sounds about right. This is exactly what's going on here: on one side Shi Zhengli swore on her life that the coronavirus wasn't from her lab and cursed those who questioned. The virus is natural indeed - nobody said it's not natural. But the question is about how the viruses got out and spread. On the other side, Richard H. Ebright said to BBC a possible lab leak cannot be ruled out and the genomic sequence of coronavirus causing the 2019-2020 Wuhan outbreak is very close to the bat coronavirus species RaTG13 stored in her lab since 2013.

There is a debate. This current wiki page is full of decorations and propaganda. It's simply not a true and balanced summary of the researcher and her contribution and character. I don't encourage a change at this stage either, but wanted to do the best to keep this update and debate on record. And hope the truth will be revealed soon, understanding it may or may not be revealed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Just have to LOL at this ridiculous talk page and all the editors frantically carrying water for this lady. As the years go on you will hopefully feel very dumb for getting so worked up about the possibility (increasingly likely) that COVID leaked from her poorly operated lab performing gain of function experiments.

Update on Feb 6 2020 by Wikipedia China:

As of 5:00PM ET Feb 6, 2020, the Wikipedia China's page of Shi Zhengli has been updated by Chinese wiki editors to reflect the ongoing nation-wide allegations in China about her possible involvement of improper biosafety lab management to lead to bat coronavirus leak and 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.

The debate this researcher involved in is real and nation-wide. Shi Zhengli is not who is portrayed here on this wiki page. More people have realized that she or her affiliates have been using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool for her own personal promotion, neglecting involvement of nation-wide allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)

References

Controversy Mk II

The South China Morning Post has now reported on the social media attacks on Shi as well as her response to them which I have included. SCMP is one of the best RS for China, and the fact that they chronicle what Shi said (both in posts, and to the SCMP), is notable. Similarly, Caixin, who is quite a good financial RS in China, has reported on the same issue, and note additional comments from her, which are worthy of chronicle. The key aspect for WP:BLP, is that we are recording what the subject said (which is appropriate in a BLP), versus what others say about the subject (which we need to only focus on highest quality RS). Britishfinance (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

:Update on Feb 8 2020:

This page is sadly becoming a one-sided propaganda page for this researcher's personal fame, neglecting the growing questioning and debates about the researcher's work and its potential association with the 2019-2020 Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak.

South China Morning Post (owned by Ali group in Zhejiang China) and Caixin （a financial agency in Beijing, capital city of China） are both China central government-monitored and censored news agency. Sadly, this wiki page has become a speaker for those propaganda agencies. Ironically, some truthful journalists at Caixin just published an investigation report in Wuhan by risking their own lives (yes, the journalists went there) for the 2019-2020 coronavirus outbreak a week ago. Their report only existed for a day before it was erased by China central government. And now, it's been officially tailored to praise the questioned researcher and cover up her potential link to the outbreak, and has been listed here as a piece of evidence on Wikipedia. Sad.

Also ironically, this page is in a direct contradiction to the Wiki Chinese page about the debate and the character of the researcher, edited by Chinese speaking editors who are more familiar with the matter. Most importantly, the Wiki Chinese page disclosed the questions raised by the Chinese public from multiple sources. This Wiki page only lists censored information from the official propaganda channels like South China Morning Post and Caixin. In China, any idea, news, fact that are not in agreement with the central government are deemed as "rumor" and "fake news". Most ironically, the Chinese medical doctor who first warned the public about the outbreak of the 2019-2020 Wuhan outbreak was deemed "spreading rumor". He was punished by the Chinese police, and lated died of coronavirus infection himself. His "rumor", as deemed by China news agency, is now truth.

The cited reference 12 is wrong. The journal is not Nature. It is a journal called "Cell Research" under Nature publishing group, owned by Chinese government owned Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences. Nature is prestigious, well regarded. Cell research is somewhere Chinese researchers rush into publication usually as their last resort (see comment about remdesvir and patent application below). Please do not mislead the audience.

About the patent application and paper publication - as Gilead is supplying free of charge their remdesivir to Chinese patients for the clinical trial during the 2019-2020 outbreak, this researcher is applying for a patent application (yes, for a drug that is invented and owned by somebody else), writing up a paper for submission, and withholding the potential efficacy information to the patient public until Gilead ships their investigational drug to China. She and her group kept the patent application of remdesivir, the efficacy information, and the manuscript to themselves until their plan was disrupted by Gilead's free-of-charge clinical trial started, when the researcher had to disclose. And the researcher said they will not exercise the patent right? Come on. This is shameless. Remdesivir was invented by somebody else (Gilead) and patented for coronavirus treatment since 2016.

Also an update: there is officially an investigation started. We will see how it goes. Hopefully the truth will be revealed, and criminals got their deserved punishment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)

:Update 2 on Feb 8 2020:

As for Zhengli Shi's claim "The novel 2019 coronavirus is nature punishing the human race for keeping uncivilized living habits. I, Shi Zhengli, swear on my life that it :has nothing to do with our laboratory", it should be noted that,

Both China CDC's report on the New England Journal of Medicine (Figure 1), and local clinicians' report on the Lancet (Figure 1B), revealed that the index patient (the first patient in a disease outbreak - the human origin of the outbreak) had no link to the Huanan Seafood market blamed by Zhengli Shi. The findings of China CDC and the local clinicians are in direct contradiction to Zhengli Shi's claim.

Who is the first patient? What happened to him? How come he had no link to the seafood market blamed by Zhengli Shi and the Chinese officials? How come the CDC and the local clinicians' report both contradict to what Zhengli Shi said? Why the coronavirus he contracted with "showed high sequence identity" to the "BatCoV RaTG13" stored in Zhengli Shi's lab since 2013? Can Zhengli Shi swear her own life on behalf of tens of thousands infected and hundreds dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that. The first three references don't mention Shi Zhengli (or even her Wuhan Institute of Virology), so they are of no use to this article. The fourth and fifth are direct papers which also don't come from Shi Zhengli (or mention her), so we can't use them either (it would be WP:OR – we would need reliable independent sources to tell us what you are saying above, otherwise, we can't use it). SCMP is probably as good a source as we can get in China, and it is useful that it quotes her directly (and thus relevant to her biography, whether she turns out to be untruthful or not). As you say, I think in the next few weeks, we are going to get major US sources run bigger pieces on Shi Zhengli, which will be important in her article. PS - if you can find any good independent sources talking about her, post them here and lets review them for inclusion. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

What I am doing here is to keep a clear record of the debates, which are linked to the discussed researcher here.

Also a mistake I already pointed out in your edit is not corrected. So I repeat: "The cited reference 12 is wrong. The journal is not Nature. It is a journal called "Cell Research" under Nature publishing group, owned by Chinese government owned Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences. Nature is prestigious, well regarded. Cell research is somewhere Chinese researchers rush into publication usually as their last resort (see comment about remdesvir and patent application below). Please do not mislead the audience. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have put in Cell Research as the journal source (not Nature); I am confused however as to why the url for that ref comes from nature.com – does the same "nature" publish both journals? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nature is a publishing group; they publish many journals, including the eponymous Nature. 58.141.206.126 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for a separate "Controversy" section. Just describe her biography and research. The conspiracy theories can be discussed in one or two sentences, given how widely they've been circulated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

(Need to add under research heading) In 2010, Shi Zhengli was involved in studying the interactions of bat ACE2's with human SARS-Cov spike protein, mediated by using both HIV based pseudo type and live SARS-CoV infection assays. Source https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00705-010-0729-6.pdf 2600:2B00:9A07:8500:ED53:D5D4:68A9:C86D (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

We have to be very careful using direct research like that as it can be WP:OR (I think you are the IP on my Talk Page). Per WP:42, we need high quality independent secondary sources to say this (verus your own conclusions from WP:PRIMARY sources). Helpfully, I notice that the Washington Post opinion piece (my bad, there) article I added yesterday quotes from US Embassy cables noting your point (re ACE2), which several other IPs have wanted to make in this article. I have added this back in and hopefully CowHouse will be okay with that, as I think it is worth clarifying, and perhaps will calm some IPs down :) Britishfinance (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The gain-of-function experiments are already mentioned in the second paragraph of the "Research" section. There's no need to duplicate this material, and three sentences is too much space to give to Rogin's conspiracy theory, given the overall length of this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (wiki vandalism. Crazy person. She discover source of SARS outbreak) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:843:C300:7970:61E4:6164:C113:8986 (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this article must be kept to continue free unbiased knowledge being made available to the public. Shi Zhengli and the Chinese goverment want to supress this information and we need wikipedia free and open to allow people to see all sides of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.151.117 (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... information very relative to the current coronavirus pandemic- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:9206:5C00:1D1A:DD61:774D:D761 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... While the role of a scientist is not often clear within a near-term historical context, the growing importance of novel coronaviruses is clear - this article is well researched and does not a) promote false information about the role of Shi Zhengli in the Coronavirus pandemic b)the article does not support any other narrative than an objective look at roles and responsibilities. Deleting this article will add to falsehoods about the virus, and embolden conspiracies.

Cbass.cpt (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be claimed that Shi Zhengli is not notable. She's one of the world's leading researchers into coronaviruses, with multiple publications in Nature and Science, interviews in Scientific American, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

She is obviously notable, even from a basic WP:GNG perspective, and would also meet several WP:NPROF criteria (e.g. #1). 15:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This page needs to stop being biased and offering one-sided views

I'm collapsing this wall of text to help make this page a little more readable and reduce the disruption being caused by this editor, who is now blocked for one month from this article and its talk page under WP:GS/COVID19 sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is untrue. I have been removing BIAS from the article that you continue to inject, including a Nature article that you refuse to use because you yourself decided "Nature" is not a valid source. Other users have noticed your bias with the Nature article incident. LIXIAO9987 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Not ALL leading virologists agree to zoonosis transmission: Professor Nikolai Petrovsky has completed a scientific study, currently undergoing peer review, in conjunction with La Trobe University in Victoria, which found COVID-19 was uniquely adapted for transmission to humans, far more than any other animal, including bats Professor Petrovsky, from the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University who has spent the past 20 years developing vaccines against pandemic influenza, Ebola and animal SARS, said this highly unusual finding left open the possibility that the virus leaked from a laboratory. >Overall, the data indicates that SARSCoV2 is uniquely adapted to infect humans, raising questions as to whether it arose in nature by a rare chance event or whether its origins lie elsewhere. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199 So how are ALL scientists agreeing? They are NOT. Why is one ONE SIDE represented? BiasLIXIAO9987 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC) MIT postdoc explains the PRRA insert relative to RmYN02 evolution argument. >Conclusion is that "no evidence" either way for whether it's natural or engineered despite the authors of the RmYN02 paper claiming that it demonstrates "natural evolution" http://archive.is/17ong >The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event, as the genetic sequence of the virus was nearly identical to the sequences of decades-old strains. While there are several hypotheses that could explain its origin, the possibility that the 1977 epidemic resulted from a laboratory accident has recently gained popularity in discussions about the biosafety risks of gain-of-function (GOF) influenza virus research, as an argument for why this research should not be performed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/ Either you are intentionally ignorant about laboratory leaked argument put forth by scientists, or you are intentionally engineering the narrative to represent one side and attempt to discredit the other. LIXIAO9987 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC) >" ... we call for the retraction of this Nature paper to further verify the sequencing data, patient sample collection date and provide more information regarding the origin, identification and characterization of this BatCoV RaTG13. Proper verification should involve Dr. Zhengli Shi sending the RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991-related bat samples to other noncollaborating laboratories to be analyzed independently. And this Nature paper1 should be cautious on making the “probable bat origin” hypothesis before RaTG13 existence could be confirmed. " >Conclusion: This paper was rushed to make a premature connection between bat coronavirus and SARSCoV-2, drawing a potential bat origin scenario to support SARS-CoV-2 zoonotic transmission from bat to human. However, this connection was based on a potential bat coronavirus strain RaTG13, that may not truly exist https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0044/v1 All journal articles evaluating the origin or epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 that utilize the RaTG13 bat strain genomics are potentially flawed and should be retracted. https://osf.io/wy89d/ >Wuhan doctor publishes scientific article claiming SARS CoV 2 is a combination of SARS and HIV viruses designed by the US military at Fort Derrick http://archive.is/cAmtz Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly. >But long before Trump, Pompeo and Co. sought a Chinese scapegoat for the president’s gross and willful incompetence, researchers understood that the possibility of laboratory escape of the pathogen was a plausible, if unproven, possibility. It is most definitely not “a conspiracy theory.” http://archive.is/5m1N0 >That is to say, the idea of an animal intermediate is speculation. Indeed, no credible viral or animal host intermediaries, either in the form of a confirmed animal host or a plausible virus intermediate, has to-date emerged to explain the natural zoonotic transfer of Sars-CoV-2 to humans http://archive.is/RxbFv https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787 https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 LIXIAO9987 (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Let's break down another thing. You consider your own sources as legitimate while mine are not, because they do not suit your narrative. for example, i have quoted shi zhengli's work of engineering bat viruses by making chimeras to infect hACE2 receptors, which is again in MULTIPLE Nature publications, and a Nature publication exists which criticized her work. None of that is suitable according to you for this article, despite very high quality referencing. There were moments where you INTENTIONALLY changing scientific wording on her work from the meaning of the article to make it look 'less bad', but in turn, scientifically inaccurate and not representative of her work. Ever think maybe I have background and that's how I can interpret the papers? Maybe you do too, and you are intentionally misleading. That, I don't know. But back to the sources. So, "Vox" is a source, with this to say: >The scientists I did speak to all acknowledge it’s not possible to definitively rule out the lab-escape theory. “The trouble with hypotheses is that they are not disprovable. You cannot prove a negative,” said Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and a disease ecologist who has studied emerging infectious diseases with colleagues in China. Can I just mention as a sidenote that Daszak controls the GENOME for this virus? and thus has HEAVY bias in swaying public information regarding it? James Taylor, a scientist at Johns Hopkins, tweeted in advocacy to make the genome accessible and transparent, which he believed it was not. This was not some FRINGE CONSPIRACY THEORIST, he was a world class scientist. I'd ask him what he meant, but he died at the age of 40 the next day. That aside, if Daszak is a source, why isn't, say: >Prof. Richard H. Ebright, the laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology and a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University Sounds like a credible source to me. What does he have to say? >Did the Wuhan coronavirus originate from a wild animal market -- or a laboratory accident? TheStreet posed the question of a top microbiology expert who said either was possible. https://www.thestreet.com/latest-news/was-the-coronavirus-outbreak-caused-by-a-lab-accident So why is this not a valid source? or a credible guy? All your sources have not only strong ties to quickly swiping away any talk of laboratory origins, but are themselves, criticized and disagreed with among experts. My account exists to tell the truth instead of pushing a one-sided false narrative. This is supposed to be a public source of free information and the way it's being suppressed is telling of the times ahead. Of which, you've contributed your part in help building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIXIAO9987 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC) LIXIAO9987 (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC) A new scientist, fresh off the presses! >Sequences in the surface of the coronavirus indicate that it does not come from nature, but is probably developed by Chinese and American scientists. This is the opinion of Norwegian vaccine scientist Birger Sørensen >Sørensen and the British professor Angus Dalgleish show that the coronavirus's so-called spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted. >According to Sørensen, the virus has properties that differ greatly from SARS, and which have never been detected in nature. >When we technically describe the virus, we see that it has not come about in a natural development. It's done by Americans and Chinese, as part of what's called "gain of function" studies. It is done all over the world. You say you don't, but it happens all the time in advanced labs, according to Sørensen. >The inserted sequences should never have been published. Had it been today, it would never have happened. It was a big mistake the Chinese made. The inserted sequences have a functionality that we describe. We explain why they are essential. But the Chinese pointed to them first, says Sørensen. http://archive.is/aZFGV but let me guess, doesn't count as source, right? all these scientists who are risking their careers to tell the truth are just stirring the pot a bit right?LIXIAO9987 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I see a number of valid points made by LIXIAO9987 in there. But they've been removed from context. A link to a version of this page that shows them in context would be helpful. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)