Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a28fe6e90a7eb5b3

Jump to content

Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 18 hours ago by Lostsandwich in topic It might be time to revisit the lab leak theory

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

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

Lab leak theory sources

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 years 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


This article is incomplete

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago37 comments19 people in discussion

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

There's a whole section here on the" lab leak theory" which summarises the main article, and hyperlinks are a thing. The selective quotation of rumours from spy agencies would be undue here (as it is in the lede of that detailed article). It may have excited the press and social media but didn't really move the knowledge needle. Bon courage (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
"It may have excited the press" is one way to look at it, but it isn't the right way to look at it. "It has been widely covered in reliable sources" is the right way to look at it. So I find that line of argument unpersuasive to say the least. It is precisely in the section on the lab leak theory where this information should be included, and an adjustment to the lede is also warranted. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Frankly, we've already discussed this matter and come to a consensus. There's an article on that topic, there's no reason to expand it here, regardless of whether or not you find the argument "unpersuasive". — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
BC, a great deal of this article content currently reads like a piece of journalism. If that is the purpose of the article, to record the happenings concerning the search for the origin, then it does not serve the reader to exclude some of these items which come from the news.
But you are correct to say these items do not "move the knowledge needle", they can't because we really do not have a good idea why they are taking these positions without engaging in original research. We do have some good sources characterizing the intelligence agencies opinions: they are an unknown, they do not make their evidence and reasoning open for scrutiny by others. They cannot be a part of the scientific debate on the origins, but the seeming wish is to incorporate them as if they do and in opposition to our best sources. This also does not serve the reader.
This section follows an oft repeated pattern on the two articles. We should "mention" something widely covered in "reliable" (news) sources because it supports lab leak. Continuing discussion quickly devolves into useless opining as seen below. I think the great weight of P&G support that your conception of the article definitely should come first. Journalistic content can however provide some value to the reader. WP:NOTNEWS is pretty much a useless and naive guideline and doesn't provide much help. Do you think we could incorporate both conceptions of what the article should be by providing a clear demarcation for the reader? Maybe create "In the News" or "Timeline" sections as a way to include the journalistic content so it is clearly separated from the encyclopedic content? fiveby(zero) 10:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
If we create a "In The News" section, regardless of what we call it, we will have newish editors come in every time there is a blip in reporting wanting to expand it endlessly. We have been seeing this in the lab leak article for a prolonged period now. The current amount of prose dedicated to the lab leak is sufficient. If we want to update that then we should do so in a manner that doesn't amount to a net increase in prose, being extremely mindful of what we do put in because it should be offset with removal. To me this is the only way we could meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT given what review articles from MEDLINE-indexed scientific journals have to say on the matter. TarnishedPathtalk 12:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Science vs journalism does not appear to be the issue. A report from the Académie nationale de médecine is also excluded, even from the lab leak article. - Palpable (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Jimbo Wales, we dedicate a full paragraph to the lab leak theory, explaining why scientists view it as highly unlikely, and we direct readers to the full article on the topic. It's not reasonable to ask that we repeat the statements of spy agencies in such a small space. -Darouet (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Is it really necessary to label the section with "Unlikely scenarios?" "Other scenarios" would be more neutral. I would edit it myself, except this article is locked for some reason. Wermod (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes it is necessary to label these scenarios as "unlikely," as assessed by the WHO and the scientific community. -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
"Unlikely" is not the word used by WHO, not at all.
WHO Director-General Tedros “All hypotheses must remain on the table, including zoonotic spillover and lab leak." https://www.who.int/news/item/27-06-2025-who-scientific-advisory-group-issues-report-on-origins-of-covid-19
The article is biased. It excludes weighty scientific opinion in favor of a lab leak origin and refers to scientific consensus which does not exist. Looks politically motivated.
Perhaps the problem is conflation of a possible accidental lab leak with deliberate "weaponization" of a lab-created virus. The latter is the subject of conspiracy theories, and there is no shred of evidence that I have ever seen.
If the intention of the article is to manipulate public dialogue against harmful conspiracy theories, this may have unintended consequences -- refusing to give the lab leak hypothesis its proper status may empower conspiracy theories, by reducing trust, creating signs of manipulation, and by feeding conflation of these two things. Truth and objective honesty is always the best choice. Cromwell, Earl of Essex (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Unlikely" is not the word used by WHO WHO used more than one word. They said "extremely unlikely". "Must remain on the table" does not contradict that statement. Demanding that even extremely unlikely ideas remain on the table is OK.
weighty scientific opinion In science, opinions are never "weighty". Evidence is. Scientific consensus is based on evidence. And the evidence clearly points to zoonotic spillover in the Huanan seafood market. Even in the extreme case that every scientist in the world believed in a lab leak, the evidence would be against it and the consensus would not change. The vast majority of scientists know the difference between their opinion and the evidence. But most lab-leakers have no clue that this is how science works, so they see conspiracies where there is only competence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Wermod locked because the wiki gestapo doesn't like being called out. they still fervently defend their actions during covid. Bdhzuzuuzyy (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Jimbo, as you correctly point out this article is not regarding the lab leak theory. This article is about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and as others above have already pointed out there is a full paragraph already dedicated to the lab leak. Per the source analysis provided at WP:NOLABLEAK any further dedication of this article to the lab lead theory would be WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPathtalk 08:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The “argument” that "this article is not regarding the lab leak theory" but rather "about the origin of SARS-CoV-2" overlooks a key point: the lab leak theory is a widely recognized hypothesis about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The title and scope of the article inherently encompass all major theories explaining how the virus emerged, including the lab leak hypothesis. Yet, despite this, a few editors consistently block well-sourced content related to the lab leak theory, dismissing it as "an unlikely scenario" without conclusive evidence to justify that stance.
This approach is increasingly difficult to defend. The lab leak theory isn't a fringe notion-it's been extensively covered by reputable mainstream media outlets and referenced in scientific discourse, with some experts considering it a plausible explanation. Given that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains under active investigation, with no definitive consensus, excluding or downplaying this theory undermines Wikipedia's core principles of neutrality and comprehensive coverage. Readers deserve a balanced presentation of all significant hypotheses, not a filtered version shaped by subjective judgments.
To maintain the article's integrity and usefulness, it should fairly include the lab leak theory alongside other explanations, supported by credible sources. This would reflect the complexity of the ongoing debate and allow readers to assess the evidence for themselves, rather than having one perspective arbitrarily sidelined. ItIsAlwaysThere (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
He has his November 2022 Robert F. Garry source and apparently thats about it. Short: Africa, funding, unlikelyness, funding again and O-linked glycans. Alexpl (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ItIsAlwaysThere refer to WP:WEIGHT. Per WP:NOLABLEAK the very best sources consistently state that zoonotic origin is most likely. The lab leak conspiracy theory is straight up WP:FRINGE. One paragraph, in an article which is not directly about the lab leak conspiracy theory, is more than enough coverage.TarnishedPathtalk 11:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
WP:NOLABLEAK is some editors private collection of stuff and not an official site. Dont use it like one. Alexpl (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Whether or not WP:NOLABLEAK is policy is immaterial if it has effectively analyzed the sources. It's providing guidance. That guidance is good. You saying "yeah but we don't HAVE to follow it," doesn't change the quality of the guidance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Using a preselected set of sources provides excellent guidance for sure - but doesnt help with any article. Alexpl (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well said. It's especially frustrating that prolific and established editors are outright calling it a fringe theory (including in this thread!) when there's no consensus for that. A few very active editors treat anything related to the lab leak like a conspiracy theory and people who disagree are being ridiculed and dismissed as if they are all crackpots. This is not Wikipedia at its best.
The fact that lab leak has become a political issue among conservatives in the U.S. does not mean readers are best served by throwing away normal Wikipedia processes. That's all I'd really like to see. If some users truly believe it is a fringe theory and want to press that, they need to go the normal route with RFCs and we need more participation and input from experienced editors who don't frequent these pages. Ymerazu (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ymerazu please do not WP:STRAWMAN other editors in this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 21:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
You declared lab leak a conspiracy theory and fringe *in this discussion*. Ymerazu (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ymerazu, you wrote:

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

No one in this conversation has ridiculed or dismissed anyone as a crackpot.
You've previously been warned for this type of behaviour on your user talk. This behaviour will not be continued to be tolerated. TarnishedPathtalk 23:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Since coming here I have been accused of sockpuppetry at least twice, maybe three times, (and nothing happened to anyone casting aspersions against me) so I guess I should be used to these kinds of accusations by now.
To my point, the current consensus is that "There is no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a 'conspiracy theory' or if it is a 'minority, but scientific viewpoint'".
When people come to these discussions with good faith suggestions on changes to the pages, like in this thread, and then established and prolific editors like yourself declare that the lab leak is a fringe theory (again, like in this thread), despite the current consensus being undecided, that is dismissing editors as supporting a fringe theory.
My suggestion, again, is that people follow normal Wiki process as I understand it which is to change consensus with RFCs. It's actually completely wild to me that it hasn't been brought to RFC since 2021, and an admin reviewing disagreements on the page even recently suggested that there could be more consensus building along those lines. Ymerazu (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The fact that a previous RFC has been unable to determine consensus on whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a 'conspiracy theory' or if it is a 'minority, but scientific viewpoint' does not preclude me or any other edtior from stating that it is a conspiracy theory and making arguments from that basis. There is sourcing to that effect and I am entitled to make arguments which are supported by what I consider to be the best sourcing.
Again, no one in this conversation has ridiculed or dismissed anyone as a crackpot. As per your being taken to WP:SPI that is really none of my concern. Stop attempting to put words into other editors mouths and accusing them of things they haven't done. It will not be tolerated. TarnishedPathtalk 00:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I do not mind being taken to sock puppet investigations because I am not a sock puppet as it will routinely reveal, I suppose. In fact, that's the preferred path. When people accuse me on talk pages or elsewhere, that's not as nice. As to the implied threat here, I doubt I will come out on top if brought to review a second time as a newish editor, so I'd genuinely rather you not. Take care. Ymerazu (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
On second thought, I want to push back because I don't think leaving this unsaid is constructive to building an encyclopedia.
I did not say "in this conversation" nor did I say you could not hold to your beliefs that the lab leak is a conspiracy theory. I said that declaring the lab leak a fringe theory as a general response to many comments on these talk pages was dismissive of good faith editors. And I absolutely did not name you in particular.
Discussions on the covid origins pages are often not amicable and dismissive language is routinely used against good faith editors. I can't imagine anyone who has read these pages even for a brief period would disagree with this. Editors I won't single out here have been brought to admin review multiple times for exactly the behavior I'm talking about above. Ymerazu (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I said that declaring the lab leak a fringe theory as a general response to many comments on these talk pages was dismissive of good faith editors.
Well that statement is incorrect. Arguing in accordance with what the very best sources say is what we should be undertaking as much as possible.
More broadly I don't understand why you would think that bringing up real or imagined slights from other editors in other discussions is at all useful. TarnishedPathtalk 23:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@TarnishedPath am a scientist, actually understand what they look for to determine if genetic engineering vs zoonotic origin is likely. Nobody credible thinks it's lab leak. It's only given any credence by those who don't understand what they're talking about. LMFcan (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@LMFcan, thanks for your input. Unfortanetly this article and others like it often have influxes of newish editors trying to WP:RGW everytime Trump, Rand Paul, etc talk about this issue. TarnishedPathtalk 22:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ymerazu You point to the lack of local consensus that the lab leak hypothesis is inherently a conspiracy theory. However, the lack of such consensus cannot imply (1) that lab leak conspiracy theories do not exist, nor does it require (2) that editors must not refer to lab leak allegations as conspiracy theories on this Talk page. You appear to be making assertions and expressing concerns about the behaviour of other editors. but what you propose does not follow from this lack of local consensus.
Also, you appear to be neglecting another point that has repeatedly achieved local consensus, documented as: The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. Presenting the origins of Covid-19 as though it were the subject of competing but equally plausible explanations would appear to run afoul of that consensus, at least unless we were to adopt the structure, "The consensus of scientists is X; however, many politicians and intelligence agencies assert Y". So it seems that unless Talk consensus determines that the consensus of scientists has shifted, or we reach a consensus to "relativize" the scientific findings on the matter - unless the community decides to do one of these two things, the broad changes that some editors seek in this and other related articles will continue to be against consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ItIsAlwaysThere excellently put Bdhzuzuuzyy (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • This discussion is getting derailed. The lab leak idea does receive coverage in this article, proportionally to its acceptance in published scientific literature. If the section were to be expanded, there is zero chance that statements made by spy agencies in the United States or Germany would be included there. -Darouet (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Im glad someone has said it. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
To say that spy agencies are the only group of people who have argued in favor of the lab leak theory is in itself misinformation. There have been statistical models of the likelihood of covid-19 coming from a lab versus zoonosis. See here:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33428/w33428.pdf
The mutations in the region of the spike protein (1000 plus nucleotides) are notable for how unnatural they are in terms of natural virus evolution.
In addition we know the the Wuhan Institute of Virology was using BSC level 2 and 3 conditions for BSC level 4 work. This in fact has been widely reported on.
https://usrtk.org/risky-research/wuhans-lower-biosafety-level-labs-posed-greater-risk-for-coronavirus-lab-leak/
Coupled with the history of other laboratory leaks in China like the Lanzhou Brucellosis Outbreak (2019), SARS Outbreaks (2004), and the Poliovirus (2014) which were all caused by breaching of laboratory safety standards implies that this is not a fringe conspiracy theory and should not be waved away simply because the CIA and German intelligence agencies are the most reliable "sources." Plus the New York Times, NBC, and the Guardian have all written articles regarding this--meaning that plenty of secondary sources besides the CIA exist. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Agnieszka653 I don't think anyone on this Talk page has suggested that only intelligence agencies have advocated for the lab leak hypothesis. ont he contrary, many politicians have also done so, along with conspiracy-minded people from many walks of life (including economists, for example). Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Lab leak is confirmed

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Trolling or otherwise WP:NOTHERE behaviour is unproductive. Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

the lab leak has been confirmed lol why does the article still stand as is with such horribly biased information and tone. Bdhzuzuuzyy (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

By "confirmed" you mean "some guy I happen to trust (for no good reason) is convinced of it", right?
On Wikipedia, you need reliable sources. Hearsay is not enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Hob Gadling covid.gov Bdhzuzuuzyy (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
The source is the old fraud who lies whenever he opens his mouth? Is that the reason you were chuckling when you started this thread?
As I said, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Not on that senile toddler's fantasy tales. Please read WP:RS: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Hob Gadling Major TDS over here. Wikipedia doesn't need your biased and incorrect rhetoric. Bdhzuzuuzyy (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It might be time to revisit the lab leak theory

[edit]
Latest comment: 18 hours ago11 comments8 people in discussion

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/letter-and-testimomy.pdf

https://zenodo.org/records/15031167

I realize this is all very politically sensitive for Americans for whatever reason, but it is precisely those who are so involved that should look into strong accusations (with easily verifiable evidence) currently being made. I see a lot of "settled science" framing being thrown around, but the problem is this isn't solely a question of science. The fact that something may or may not occur naturally in nature does not discard the possibility of a model organism being constructed for legitimate research, this model organism being leaked (likely accidentally), and then the people involved capitalizing on the fact that they were assigned to investigate themselves to cover it up, which is what is being alleged. No lizard people, no Illuminati, just humans taking any opportunity to avoid consequences for their own incompetence. I urge the people who have made being against this possibility a load-bearing part of their identity to fundamentally revisit their stance on whether they consider themselves skeptics, and inspect themselves for political bias. Allofather (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned at our article on the Lab Leak Theory, Erdman III's views don't reflect those of experts in this field.
Separately, our article here has a great deal of information about the subject it covers: the Origin of SARS-CoV-2. I'm surprised that your comment above doesn't contain even a passing reference to any information in the article. If someone wanted to debate the nature of Earth's moon and instead of discussing the nearly infinite available perspectives and publications from astronomy and geosciences, they just linked a single fringe source, it would provide no basis for further discussion and certainly no increase in the sum total of subject knowledge. -Darouet (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
There's a middle ground between "lizard people" and "seriously considered hypothesis" for normal, boring, extreme minority views in science. A lot of Lab Leak stuff falls here. It doesn't bear much scrutiny based on the level of weight given by mainstream views but that doesn't make it lizard people stuff either. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
But it's still an extreme minority position in the scientific literature. It is far less likely to be correct than mainstream views. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article is grossly out of date

[edit]

Nor does it reflect current consensus not just of the medical community, but of the intelligence community: e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7JAAF0VbQI However, both it, and the article history, do serve by default to impart the sorry story of how Covid-19 was immorally but deliberately politicised, with the lab-leak narrative painted by multiple players as a MAGA right-wing conspiracy in order to suppress inconvenient truths, resulting in left-media, including Wikipedia, swallowing whole the peddled falsehoods, and not only relentlessly refusing to acknowledge even the smallest particle of any of alternative story, but actively suppressing them, even after the evidence of an official cover-up became overwhelming.

The fact the article remains grossly out of date, even in June 2026, shows the absolute iron grip of a minority of bullheaded leftist editors in the face of bald fact, and which is why Wikipedia Admin is now in panic mode (evidenced by the opening up of editing to non-registered users), given the rise of Grokopedia with its more AI-curatorially balanced articles. ~2026-32488-45 (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is only "left" if seen from the extreme right. Regarding "alternative stories", see alternative facts.
To change the article, you need reliable sources. Whining that people disagree with your favorit talking heads is not valid reasoning. Tulsi Gabbard's self-published stuff is not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
And of course, you decide what a reliable source is.
The truth is all over the internet. Everyone can see it, but your set of talking heads doesn't allow you to think critically. ~2026-42838-11 (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, the community determines (not decides) what a reliable source is. See WP:RSP and its talk page. But self-published sources are not used. If Fauci had a page, we would not cite him either.
And it is not Wikipedia's fault that so many right-wing sources are run by frauds, grifters and crackpots. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Famous epidemiologist, Tulsi Gabbard. Lostsandwich (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Or Anthony Fauci.
https://thehill.com/opinion/robbys-radar/5992255-rand-paul-investigates-fauci-diary/ ~2026-43675-13 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
A barely literate reading of Fauci's journals doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&oldid=1368564092"