This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Viruses Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the modified text, please advise.

In Feb 2020, The Lancet published a statement^[1] by a group of scientists led by Peter Daszak condemning “conspiracy theories" suggesting that COVID-19 might be a lab accident. In May 2021, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci in his testimony to the Congress ^[2] , EcoHealth Alliance received a grant from NIH, and subsequently shared a sub-grant of approximately $600,000 with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Previously in an interview with TWiV ^[3], Daszak described the possibility of manipulating coronavirus for vaccine development: "coronaviruses are pretty good ... you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily ... the spiked proteins drive a lot about what happens." In the same interview, Daszak went on to highlight the work by Dr. Ralph Baric at UNC, who collaborated with Shi Zhengli, to "insert into the backbone of another virus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlaw2 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daszak has collaborated with Dr. Shi Zhengli, the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology with efforts to trace SARS viruses to bats after the 2003 epidemic. His organization administered more than $100 million in U.S. federal grants to fund overseas laboratory experiments, including those performed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.^[1][2]

After he was approved as the sole US member of the World Health Organization investigative effort into the origins of COVID-19, its independence was questioned by Miles Pomper, a co-author of an expert guide to investigating outbreak origins published by the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, saying that the team was "seriously compromised by the process used to choose investigators [...] In particular, the choice of Dr. Daszak, who has a personal stake in ensuring current Chinese practices continue and who is a longtime collaborator of a scientist at the center of the investigation, is likely to taint its results.”^[3][4]

In April 2020, Peter Daszak emailed Dr. Anthony Fauci, praising him as "brave" for seeking to debunk the lab leak theory.^[5][6]

The Lancet letter did not disclose to readers that Daszak's group had funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab, and at least three of those signers would later say a laboratory accident merits consideration. In one leaked email, Mr. Daszak wrote that the document should “not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person." The letter stated "We declare no competing interests."^[7][8]

The Lancet later issued an addendum, inviting the authors of the letter, specifically Daszek, to report competing interests.^[9][10]

Journalists Jeremy Page, Betsy McKay and Drew Hinshaw wrote in The Wall Street Journal regarding the WHO investigation team, of which Daszak was a member, that "It soon became evident to foreign officials and scientists tracking the mission that the team's itinerary was partly designed to bolster China’s official narrative that the government moved swiftly to control the virus".^[11] In this fashion, National Review called Daszak the "favorite American COVID-19 expert of Chinese-state-run media" and said "the Chinese government was really insulting Daszak by allowing him and barring other American scientists; it’s a de facto declaration that they perceive him as a pushover or an easy mark."^[12]

Following the WHO's release of its global study of the origins of the COVID-19, the Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus observed that "Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation" concluding that "I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough."^[13][14]

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

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