RandomUser3510 (talk | contribs) |
Pestilence Unchained (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
:::::: I agree that, as it stands today, this page does not accurately reflect the high (and intensifying) degree of controversy surrounding the institute. Take this statement, for example: "During January and February 2020, the Institute was subject to further conspiracy theories, and concerns that it was the source of the outbreak through accidental leakage,[22] which it publicly refuted.[23]" "Refuted" is absolutely the wrong word. At best, "denied." Not the same thing.--[[Special:Contributions/98.111.164.239|98.111.164.239]] ([[User talk:98.111.164.239|talk]]) 00:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC) |
:::::: I agree that, as it stands today, this page does not accurately reflect the high (and intensifying) degree of controversy surrounding the institute. Take this statement, for example: "During January and February 2020, the Institute was subject to further conspiracy theories, and concerns that it was the source of the outbreak through accidental leakage,[22] which it publicly refuted.[23]" "Refuted" is absolutely the wrong word. At best, "denied." Not the same thing.--[[Special:Contributions/98.111.164.239|98.111.164.239]] ([[User talk:98.111.164.239|talk]]) 00:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::: '''Support''' The Wikimafia controllers have blood on their hands with their censorship [[User:RandomUser3510|RandomUser3510]] ([[User talk:RandomUser3510|talk]]) 00:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC) |
::::::: '''Support''' The Wikimafia controllers have blood on their hands with their censorship [[User:RandomUser3510|RandomUser3510]] ([[User talk:RandomUser3510|talk]]) 00:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::::There is no "Wikimafia ", but I agree that the institute is best known for this controversy or speculation.--[[User:Pestilence Unchained|Pestilence Unchained]] ([[User talk:Pestilence Unchained|talk]]) 09:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reftalk}} |
{{reftalk}} |
||
Revision as of 09:26, 4 April 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The lab is the possible source for the current coronavirus epidemic. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- "The"? I wouldn't say that's an accurate statement. It's speculatively a plausible source. Anyway, the article does say it. LjL (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- "which was refuted as a conspiracy theory by The Washington Post in a piece titled: "Experts debunk fringe theory linking China’s coronavirus to weapons research"
- The linked Washington Post article only attempts to debunk the idea of the current coronavirus epidemic being a bioweapon. The Washington Post article states the facility specialized in research regarding diseases carried by bats. It did not at all 'debunk' the idea that the virus escaped from this facility. The article should be reflected to reflect this very real possibility.
- Colonycat (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- We don’t chronicle unverified conspiracy theories on WP under the guise of "not proven". If high quality RS raise new concerns it can be considered. Note also there are also WP:BLPviolations linked to this conspiracy theory (see Twitter bans Zero Hedge after it posts coronavirus conspiracy theory), that can have serious implications to editors who try to promote them. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Does Wikipedia want to be party to a coverup?47.137.181.252 (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Provide reliable sources that are not speculation on social media and other editors will consider it. Wikipedia can only publish verifiable facts. No cover-up here as evidenced by the open minded editors who continue to engage on this talk page about the topic Slywriter (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Does Wikipedia want to be party to a coverup?47.137.181.252 (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- We don’t chronicle unverified conspiracy theories on WP under the guise of "not proven". If high quality RS raise new concerns it can be considered. Note also there are also WP:BLPviolations linked to this conspiracy theory (see Twitter bans Zero Hedge after it posts coronavirus conspiracy theory), that can have serious implications to editors who try to promote them. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable approach, in fact the only approach Wikipedia can take and stay true to its principles. I think that there is rason to be suspicious of the virus origin, but it does need to be confirmed in reliable sources for us to include it in this article. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I do not understand, virus labs do create viruses in vitro (for gene therapy, e.g., as a popular vector besides CRISPR CAS). This is also not a bioweapon, too simple to be one. So lets call the name of a lab first. CAS Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety. Crazy, first link in google https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/the-pandemic-discussion-forum/824572-discussion-chinese-academy-of-sciences-cas-in-wuhan-has-been-working-with-bats-and-coronavirus-for-many-years-dna-manipulations-cloning and this (read comments only, they were very dismissive first and THEN WHEN I found out that Lab of Special Pathogens published those viruses in GenBank that completly destroyed the article ideas after the article was published) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1 2A00:1FA0:482C:1CE0:41AF:57A5:9C1C:2DF5 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The page needs a controversy section
Currently the page is merely a propaganda page for the Institute, listing all the awards and fame. It neglects ongoing national debates in China alleging the improper handling of lab animals inside the Institute may be the source of the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, as well as the Institute's lack of respect of intellectual properties, trying to steal an experimental drug from Gilead Sciences.
Suggest add a "Controversy" section.
- Controversy
In February 2017, in a news article published in Nature [1], scientists warned that a SARS-like virus could escape a lab set up that year in Wuhan, China, i.e., the Institute, to study some of the most dangerous pathogens in the world.
In February 2020, a debate [2] in Chinese social media alleged that the improper work of the Institute may lead to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak possibly due to improper handling of samples and lab animals.
In February 2020, the Institute applied for a patent in China for the use of remdesivir, an experimental drug owned by Gilead Sciences, in treating the coronavirus infection [3] . 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 Institute, most likely unintentionally, which is the only lab in China capturing bats and studying bat coronavirus. There is currently a serious debate ongoing in China, with this institute 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 institute 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.
- And in fact, the concern of the bio-safety of this lab was raised as early as in 2017 in Nature - a prestigious science journal [4]. This should be mentioned. Wikipedia should not become a propaganda page for any organization or person. Right now, this page looks like an advertisement with all the decorations but neglecting the debate and warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)
- DavidGeorge1977, I have incorporated the Bloomberg and Nature references into the article. I have also fleshed our Richard E's concern in 2017 re the lab and the fact that other SARS leaks from Beijing labs. Again, I note that Nature have explicitly put on their article heading and update to clarify that they have no belief that WIV is the source. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not the ongoing news, we are always deliberately behind the news, because we only chronicle what has been explicitly said by the highest quality sources. People may put A and B together to get C, but we cannot use it until a high-quality source explicitly says "A and B equal C". This is an encyclopedia, and what we are bringing is an are verifiable correct facts that have occurred and are accepted by the best sources. Britishfinance (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the efforts and the clarification. I understand. Just one piece of food for thoughts: why would you think that Nature put that heading to that old 2017 news article? It was an old news after all. Nobody should even care. Why is it worth of a heading today? That's because a huge debate is ongoing now and many people, especially those whose voices are censored in China, believe otherwise. Whatever that debate conclusion is, tens of thousands have been infected, hundreds died. And even more will follow. Wikipedia will not necessarily reflect the truth. It reflects the verified source. I get it. It should not be a propaganda page either.
- Chinese bats don't suddenly all fly to Wuhan altogether. They were brought there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)
- My pleasure, your frustration is a very common occurrence to people not fully familiar with WP. We are more like Nature, recording stuff that has "broken" as news a long time ago (or at least sufficiently long ago that nobody disputes it). The Nature reference you provided is very interesting as it directly contradicts that Richard E said a few days ago on WPO, who I am very happy to include it and flesh this contradiction out. If you have any other references like Bloomberg, Nature, etc. post them here and let's discuss them for the article. If you want an article that is really impactful, and that people really listen to and understand, stick to the unambiguous facts, and even avoid any kind of "controversy" assertions (unless it is a term widely used) - it is amazing how 95% of the public are not familiar with such facts and will appreciate them. They however get very dismissive when they think what they are reading is somebody's point of view/angle on a story. That just gets ignored. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that, as it stands today, this page does not accurately reflect the high (and intensifying) degree of controversy surrounding the institute. Take this statement, for example: "During January and February 2020, the Institute was subject to further conspiracy theories, and concerns that it was the source of the outbreak through accidental leakage,[22] which it publicly refuted.[23]" "Refuted" is absolutely the wrong word. At best, "denied." Not the same thing.--98.111.164.239 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support The Wikimafia controllers have blood on their hands with their censorship RandomUser3510 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- There is no "Wikimafia ", but I agree that the institute is best known for this controversy or speculation.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support The Wikimafia controllers have blood on their hands with their censorship RandomUser3510 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that, as it stands today, this page does not accurately reflect the high (and intensifying) degree of controversy surrounding the institute. Take this statement, for example: "During January and February 2020, the Institute was subject to further conspiracy theories, and concerns that it was the source of the outbreak through accidental leakage,[22] which it publicly refuted.[23]" "Refuted" is absolutely the wrong word. At best, "denied." Not the same thing.--98.111.164.239 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Inside the Chinese lab poised to study world's most dangerous pathogens". Nature www.nature.com. 2017-02-22. Retrieved 2020-02-05.
- ^ "企业家、学者实名举报武汉病毒所制造和传播病毒". 希望之声 www.soundofhope.org (in Chinese (China)). 2020-02-04. Retrieved 2020-02-05.
- ^ "China Wants to Patent Gilead's Experimental Coronavirus Drug". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2020-02-05.
- ^ "Inside the Chinese lab poised to study world's most dangerous pathogens". Nature www.nature.com. 2017-02-22. Retrieved 2020-02-05.
Updates
Update1. On Feb 5 2020 by BBC China: [1]
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.
- The article is titled "Wuhan Pneumonia: "Wuhan Virus Research Institute" in the eyes of the outbreak and fake news storm". Nothing new here above the stuff from our Nature ref and WPO refs (both in the article). We can use non-English references in an article but preference is en. I suspect that this sub-story is being monitored actively by most news agencies, so if anything tangible comes up, we will see it; also possible that WPO, NYT, BBC etc. will write a major piece in a week or so on WIV, summarising all the known facts/concerns about WIV's possible role as the source of the virus, which we could obviously use. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- You missed the point here. The point is exactly the fact that WIV is in the eyes of the storm, and this fact is not reflected in the Wiki page. As Richard Ebright has pointed in 2017, and repeatedly now again, "The possibility of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak was due to a lab accident could not be ruled out". Right now, there is an inconclusive storm going on. And this is not correctly reflected on Wikipedia. This Wikipedia page is taking a side and a conclusion of the debate, which it should not. The storm is inconclusive and debating, but Wikipedia is taking a conclusion. And this is wrong.
- It should also be pointed out that, 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 [2] [3] 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 in Wuhan. His "rumor", as deemed by China news agency, is now truth.
- This should not be taken lightly. Tens of thousands are infected, and hundreds are dead by now. Everybody hopes it is not a lab accident. But if it is, the WIV and the person who did this, should be held responsible.
- Also an update: there is officially an investigation started [4]. We will see how it goes. Hopefully the truth will be revealed. We all hope there is no criminal. But if there is, the criminals should get their deserved punishment - only when there is a conclusion to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)
- Per our earlier discussion, Wikipedia can only publish material that high-quality independent reliable sources say. We already have a who paragraph of the WIV being part of conspiracy theories? If we get more updates from high-quality reliable sources on these allegations, we will carry them. Britishfinance (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Update 2 about WIV's patent application on remdesivir:
- As the owner of remdesivir (Gilead) is supplying free of charge trial drugs to Chinese patients in clinical trials during the 2019-2020 outbreak, WIV 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 shipped their investigational drug to China. WIV and Zhengli Shi's 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 and trials drugs were given, when WIV had to disclose and claimed it as a "domestic success of drug innovation". And WIV said they will not exercise the patent right? Come on. This is shameless. Remdesivir was invented by somebody else and patented for coronavirus treatment since 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- From what I can see, none of these extra references mention the WIV, so are not really relevant (perhaps for the main 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article)? The article does mention this patent issue (per Bloomberg and NYT), I am not sure if there is more to be said on it - this is China and they have their own patent law, it is not the place to have a discussion on the rights and wrongs of Chinese patent law? Britishfinance (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- These extra references are listed here to describe 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and the closely linked China media censorship, public concern and suspicion, in which WIV is heavily involved in the storm eye. These references are not intended to be included in the WIV wiki page directly, but as supporting evidence for the debate. I saw you added the section: "During January and February 2020, the Institute was subject to further conspiracy theories and concerns that it was the source of the outbreak through accidental leakage,[13] which it publically refuted.[14] Members of the Institute's research teams were also subject to various conspiracy theories,[15][16] including Shi, who was forced herself to make various public statements defending the Institute.[17]". which is an improvement. I would not prefer the word "conspiracy" though. How does anybody know if it is a conspiracy or not before any conclusion can even be drawn? It is a debate. And people have good reasons to question. But yes, it is a "concern" indeed. Also, about Shi, she was not "forced" by anybody to make that statement. She posted that statement on her own WeChat (China's most powerful social media) moments voluntarily and also told everybody else to "shut *** up" (in Chinese). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have put a "comma" into the first sentence between conspiracies and the potential for accidental leakage (which I think has the most credibility given quotes, although by no means probable). Ultimately, give most of the refs use the term "conspiracy" (or even "fake news" per BBC CHina), we have to follow that. If a high-quality RS comes out saying that they were most likely the source of the leak (e.g. from a credible investigation), then we can include it. I have deleted the word "forced" per your comment. If you find any high-quality RS that specifically cover the WIV, then definitely alert us to them. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- These extra references are listed here to describe 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and the closely linked China media censorship, public concern and suspicion, in which WIV is heavily involved in the storm eye. These references are not intended to be included in the WIV wiki page directly, but as supporting evidence for the debate. I saw you added the section: "During January and February 2020, the Institute was subject to further conspiracy theories and concerns that it was the source of the outbreak through accidental leakage,[13] which it publically refuted.[14] Members of the Institute's research teams were also subject to various conspiracy theories,[15][16] including Shi, who was forced herself to make various public statements defending the Institute.[17]". which is an improvement. I would not prefer the word "conspiracy" though. How does anybody know if it is a conspiracy or not before any conclusion can even be drawn? It is a debate. And people have good reasons to question. But yes, it is a "concern" indeed. Also, about Shi, she was not "forced" by anybody to make that statement. She posted that statement on her own WeChat (China's most powerful social media) moments voluntarily and also told everybody else to "shut *** up" (in Chinese). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- From what I can see, none of these extra references mention the WIV, so are not really relevant (perhaps for the main 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article)? The article does mention this patent issue (per Bloomberg and NYT), I am not sure if there is more to be said on it - this is China and they have their own patent law, it is not the place to have a discussion on the rights and wrongs of Chinese patent law? Britishfinance (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- As the owner of remdesivir (Gilead) is supplying free of charge trial drugs to Chinese patients in clinical trials during the 2019-2020 outbreak, WIV 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 shipped their investigational drug to China. WIV and Zhengli Shi's 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 and trials drugs were given, when WIV had to disclose and claimed it as a "domestic success of drug innovation". And WIV said they will not exercise the patent right? Come on. This is shameless. Remdesivir was invented by somebody else and patented for coronavirus treatment since 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "武汉肺炎:卷入疫情和假新闻风暴眼中的"武汉病毒研究所"". bbc. Retrieved 2020-02-06.
- ^ "He Warned of Coronavirus. Here's What He Told Us Before He Died". NY Times. Retrieved 2020-02-08.
- ^ "In China, Anger Simmers Over Coronavirus Doctor's Death - Dr. Li Wenliang, who died of the disease, was one of the first to warn of it before he was questioned by police". WSJ. Retrieved 2020-02-08.
- ^ "White House asks scientists to investigate origins of coronavirus. The coronavirus has killed hundreds of people in China". ABC News. Retrieved 2020-02-08.
Coordinates different than address
The official website shows the address as 湖北省武漢市武昌區小洪山中區44號 which is many km. away from 30°22′28.0″N 114°15′58.4″E. Perhaps they are different offices of the same organization?
Also please add an English address to the article. Jidanni (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q30292611 Jidanni (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The article quotes a WaPo article "debunking" that the virus was engineered as a weapon at the Institute. In some research of my own I found the following article - Discovery of Novel Bat Coronaviruses in South China That Use the Same Receptor as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, and a summary - Bats Identified as Source of Pig-Killing Coronavirus in China. It is certainly no conspiracy to say that the Institute had a history with or was familiar with such a virus. It would, at this point, not be accurate to say that the virus came from that Institute, as there's no RS making that claim. Maybe it is just a coincidence that a virology research facility has experience with the very virus that began spreading across the globe from an area very close to said facility. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- There has been more written about this topic, since the WPO pieces, including this from Vox (magazine) aggregating the state of the evidence on this: The conspiracy theories about the origins of the coronavirus, debunked. Seems like it is just pure coincidence. Britishfinance (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Can we please base our opinions on this subject on a source whose objectivity in this discussion is less questionable? Vox immediately attempts to politicise the issue within their first few paragraphs. Can someone please find a non-partisan discussion to cite? The article in question correctly notes that suggestions of Chinese biological-weapon development are improbable; but does little to nothing to undermine the validity of the argument that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a possible accidental source of the contagion. The deliberate labelling of such a theory as a "conspiracy theory" is a deliberate attempt to stifle legitimate intellectual inquiry. 2A00:23C5:94D7:7300:9CA5:6FBB:AC69:511F (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, Vox is not a reliable source. Further, I counted four usages of the term "conspiracy theory" in this article. This is more of an argument for the main article, but using such a term which has negative connotations is introducing bias. It would be accurate to say "source X investigated a claim regarding Y from social media source Z and deemed it to be a conspiracy theory without evidence" but not to make such a declaration in the unquoted body. --2620:114:2012:18:581:2C0E:1120:7474 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Vox is considered a reliable source by the Wikipedia community, and is listed in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Britishfinance (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, Vox is not a reliable source. Further, I counted four usages of the term "conspiracy theory" in this article. This is more of an argument for the main article, but using such a term which has negative connotations is introducing bias. It would be accurate to say "source X investigated a claim regarding Y from social media source Z and deemed it to be a conspiracy theory without evidence" but not to make such a declaration in the unquoted body. --2620:114:2012:18:581:2C0E:1120:7474 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Can we please base our opinions on this subject on a source whose objectivity in this discussion is less questionable? Vox immediately attempts to politicise the issue within their first few paragraphs. Can someone please find a non-partisan discussion to cite? The article in question correctly notes that suggestions of Chinese biological-weapon development are improbable; but does little to nothing to undermine the validity of the argument that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a possible accidental source of the contagion. The deliberate labelling of such a theory as a "conspiracy theory" is a deliberate attempt to stifle legitimate intellectual inquiry. 2A00:23C5:94D7:7300:9CA5:6FBB:AC69:511F (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I reused a Nature RS predating this, so non-partisan for sure, with a verbatim claim of danger of accidental release. Q.v. Zezen (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
CAS Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety
And not Wuhan institute itself is in this "conspiracy" "theory". Please edit, smth like "The Institute was rumored as a source " to "The Institute (practically CAS Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety) was rumored as a source" 2A00:1FA0:482C:1CE0:41AF:57A5:9C1C:2DF5 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
How WuXi AppTec and WuXi PharmaTech are connected to Wuhan Institute (if they even are)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WuXi_AppTec https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/coronavirus-outbreak-climbs-to-more-than-6-000-cases-track-pharma-response-here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:482C:1CE0:41AF:57A5:9C1C:2DF5 (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Missing scientist: H.L. and details on the index case (Patient 0) conspiracy theory
Let us concentrate here on the presumed conspiracy theory involving the disappearing WIV scientist H.L. (nomina sunt odiosa, see the links) and the related retracted papers.
See "The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus" http://archive.is/JrGmY and the Beijing Times article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU&t=6m40s (I could not find an archive) plus the arguments raised there by the YT poster and the Chinese sources quoted there.
Of course, let us avoid WP:OR and use only WP:RS instead, while mentioning this theory, the disappearing papers (factual, see the Archive link above) and the WIV staff (as imputed).