Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 misinformation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Requested that Alexbrn explain his objections to the inclusion of the NIH Panel's scientific review regarding using ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
Line 171: Line 171:
::::::::@[[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] Does Wikipedia have a list of acceptable journals? When I became an editor, someone told me that for [[WP:MEDRS]] the journal must be in MEDLINE. [[WP:MEDRS]] doesn't say that by the way. If that's the actual policy, [[WP:MEDRS]] should be updated. Getting back to this topic, this journal is in MEDLINE. Not just MEDLINE, but Index Medicus. It's not listed in [[WP:RSP]]. You're saying that's not good enough. You and other experienced editors must know the policy, but if it's not in [[WP:MEDRS]], no one else knows what it is. Where's the list of allowable journals? [[User:Isabela31|Isabela31]] ([[User talk:Isabela31|talk]]) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] Does Wikipedia have a list of acceptable journals? When I became an editor, someone told me that for [[WP:MEDRS]] the journal must be in MEDLINE. [[WP:MEDRS]] doesn't say that by the way. If that's the actual policy, [[WP:MEDRS]] should be updated. Getting back to this topic, this journal is in MEDLINE. Not just MEDLINE, but Index Medicus. It's not listed in [[WP:RSP]]. You're saying that's not good enough. You and other experienced editors must know the policy, but if it's not in [[WP:MEDRS]], no one else knows what it is. Where's the list of allowable journals? [[User:Isabela31|Isabela31]] ([[User talk:Isabela31|talk]]) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::There is no such list, and it would be crass to attempt such. You're wrong: MDPI journals are listed in RSP. Also see [[WP:CRAPWATCH]]. For misinformation, we should use reliable sources on misinformation rather than trying to [[WP:SYNTH]]esize pro-fringe counterpoints from iffy sources. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::There is no such list, and it would be crass to attempt such. You're wrong: MDPI journals are listed in RSP. Also see [[WP:CRAPWATCH]]. For misinformation, we should use reliable sources on misinformation rather than trying to [[WP:SYNTH]]esize pro-fringe counterpoints from iffy sources. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

== NIH guidelines on Ivermectin not appropriate for article? ==

[[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] has stated that the NIH guidelines on using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 offer "too much detail" and that "this is the wrong article" for summarizing the NIH's recommendations on ivermectin use with respect to COVID-19. I asked [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] to explain why the NIH guidelines are not appropriate in this article on this talk page, but he declined to do so and instead reverted my edit for a second time. It appears from his [[User talk:Alexbrn|talk page]] that [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] has engaged in repeated edit wars across Wikipedia, so rather than provoke another edit war, I have left the page as it is, and [[User_talk:Alexbrn#Please do not edit war. Instead explain your objections to including NIH Panel recommendations in the article.|requested]] (for a second time) that he explain his objections on this talk page. [[User:Lenschulwitz|Lenschulwitz]] ([[User talk:Lenschulwitz|talk]]) 23:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:53, 8 December 2021




Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  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)
  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, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  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. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  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)

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

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]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

Information on toxicity

Newly published letter regarding toxic side effects of ivermectin. I was told it could be potentially useful here? Obama gaming (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a letter but since it's in the NEJM and comes from the Oregon Health and Science University, it could be handy for those statistics it mentions. Alexbrn (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure really as we need to really have very tight control on sources here. I would rather wait for a much better source than a letter.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a highly localized and preliminary report (Avoid over-emphasizing single studies) that should be used with great caution, if at all: it only looks at calls to one U.S. state's poison control center (although possibly serving Oregon, Alaska, and Guam), and analyzes a sample size of of 21 people. Would Wikipedians cite a case-study that shows benefits of Ivermectin using only 21 people? I doubt it. The NEJM letter shows that call frequency rose between 2000 and 2001 and apparently spiked in the month of August 2021. Is this a nationwide trend? Yes, as the this CDC report demonstrates. There are probably better sources to document effects of overdose, and to put the symptoms and statistics in greater national or global context. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entry COVID-19 denialism needed

I think, after more than a year of vocal denial, radicalization and organized mis- and disinformation, a new entry COVID-19 denialism (currently a redirect on COVID-19 misinformation) is warranted. It's extremely important to have this entry about misinformation, but it's not the right place to describe organized opposition, radicalization and the violence and attacks on scientists, vaccination centers, health personal etc. Therefore in my opinion this should be described in a new entry that can also focus better on this kind of denial movement and its allies. There are already examples in Portuguese [5] and Spanish [6]. Andol (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivermectin

Research on ivermectin is ongoing. Some bone fide scientists believe that it works, others believe that it doesn't. Here's the latest meta-analysis from a reliable source PMID 34650951 "convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance". Under these circumstances, it cannot be called "misinformation". That's clear WP:POV. Even if it turns out in the end that it doesn't work, even then its current promotion cannot be called "misinformation". "Misinformation" means that it's clear that it doesn't work and people are still promoting it. That is not the case because right now it's not clear that it doesn't work.

A lot of the current content on ivermectin is just fearmongering that does not show that it's misinformation.

The antiparasitic drug ivermectin became a cause célèbre for right-wing figures promoting it as a supposed COVID treatment.

Ivermectin is not an "antiparasitic drug". It is a drug with many uses, antiparasitic being just one of them. The characterization of ivermectin as "antiparasitic" is a subtle way of mis-characterizing its use as misinformation.

Just because right-wingers were promoting it does not make it misinformation. The whole sentence is irrelevant and should be deleted.

Misinformation about ivermectin's efficacy spread widely on social media, fueled by publications that have since been retracted,

False. Not all publications have been retracted. PMID 34650951 is from September 2021 and has not been retracted.

misleading "meta-analysis" websites with substandard methods

I can make a misleading website that says that the world is round. That does not make the statement that the world is round false. The statement is irrelevant.

and conspiracy theories about efforts by governments and scientists to "suppress the evidence."

Again, these conspiracy theories do not mean that ivermectin efficacy is misinformation.

In October 2021 a large network of companies selling hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin has been disclosed in the US, targeting primarily right-wing and vaccine hesitant groups through social media and conspiracy videos by anti-vaccine activists such as Simone Gold. The network had 72,000 customers who collectively paid $15 million for consultations and medications.

Pharmaceutical companies sell pharmaceuticals and make large amounts of money. This does not mean that the pharmaceuticals that they sell don't work.

--Isabela31 (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All these things are reliably sourced. Your counter-belief are not. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not the beliefs of editors. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have "counter-beliefs". I went through the paragraph line by line and showed that none of the statements show that promoting ivermectin for COVID is "misinformation". You don't have any comments on that.
You are making a positive assertion that promoting ivermectin for COVID is misinformation. Yet, there is no WP:MEDRS to support this assertion. In fact, there are credible medical articles, one example of which I provided, that ivermectin could be useful for COVID. Maybe that's not enough to establish that ivermectin is good for COVID, but it also means that the assertion that ivermectin for COVID is misinformation is incorrect. --Isabela31 (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alongside your beliefs, you provided one source, a Frontiers journal (weak) which, nevertheless is saying that ivermectin "could" be useful. Right. But the misinformation is that ivermectin is useful ("has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates the transmission of COVID" etc.). The reporting of the antics of quacks, charlatans, grifters and frauds does not require WP:MEDRS. This is an article on misinformation, so if you have pertinent sources bring them. But original research is unwelcome. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin D

This article lists vitamin D as "misinformation". The article on COVID-19 actually lists vitamin D as a way of preventing COVID. There is solid evidence that vitamin D works. The same comments that I made on ivermectin apply. Research is ongoing. Many bone fide scientists believe that it works. Under these circumstances, it cannot be called "misinformation". That's clear WP:POV. Even if it turns out in the end that it doesn't work, even then its current promotion cannot be called "misinformation". "Misinformation" means that it's clear that it doesn't work and people are still promoting it. That is not the case because right now it's not clear that it doesn't work. --Isabela31 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not known that it works, plainly asserting that it does is misinformation by definition. The idea that vitamins "prevent" COVID-19 is anti-vaxx loonery, and there is no good evidence it has any treatment worth.[7] Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any statement has a degree of confidence associated with it. You appear to be saying that unless the degree of confidence is 99.9%+, making a statement is misinformation. This standard is not applied in any other area of life. I agree that if the confidence is low (for example, below 20%), it is misinformation. But what if the confidence is higher? 50%? 80%?
The confidence that vitamin D prevents COVID is high enough that it is included in the article on COVID-19. How can it be listed there as preventative, in accordance with all the rules of WP:MEDRS, but then listed here as misinformation? --Isabela31 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not call vitamin D a "preventative," nor do the sources in that article. So you are deliberately spreading misinformation right here, right now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does it say about Vitamin D? Given what it says, how can vitamin D still be considered misinformation? --Isabela31 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lets try an experiment "Singing "come on feel the noize" cures Covid 19", can you provide a source that says that is not true, if not this claim is not misinformation. So do you see the problem?Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is coming very close to trolling. If you have an assertion to make, backed by reliable sources, make it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Vitamin D were found to be an effective treatment for COVID-19 (to date, neither CDC nor NHS believe it is), there can still be misinformation surrounding it. Either fraudulent studies, people taking treatment guidelines out of context (NHS recommendations for Vit D supplements to avoid deficiency while social distancing, not to improve COVID outcomes), or otherwise claiming it's a preventative without data. I think we have room to treat the topic with a bit more tact to separate ongoing science from intentional disinformation, but scientist's earnest belief that there's evidence of Vitamin D effectiveness doesn't mean that a fabricated preprint on the topic isn't misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And if and when studies say it is effective, it will not be misinformation. Until then it is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, sources that meet WP:MEDRS standards, since we're talking about a treatment for human disease. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I said studies and not sources, I assumed it was obvious I meant clinical ones.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preemptively clarifying for the original poster to save us both time, I know you're aware. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a basic logic fail among many COVID fringers, along the lines of somebody saying "You cannot say russian roulette is unsafe, it could be that pulling the trigger causes nothing more than a click - in which case I'd be justified in saying it's safe!". Misinformation stems from giving false information given known facts/probabilities, and is not cancelled by indulging in the fallacy of future vindication. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 34684596 is a systematic review and meta-analysis in an IM journal. Here's a summary of its conclusions.

Higher blood vitamin D3 levels reduce the chances of death from the SARS-CoV-2 infection. According to existing data, minimum mortality occurs at around 50 ng/mL of vitamin D3. This blood level of vitamin D3 can be achieved with daily vitamin D3 supplementation of 4,000 to 10,000 international units along with vitamin K2.

The article says that vitamin D prevents covid-19 death. Vitamin D is not "misinformation". Isabela31 (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May be a usable source that could change the way we write about the topic. Namely our first paragraph in the section, which would be at least partially out of date. The latter paragraphs still seem accurate, as this study doesn't suggest vitamin D replace vaccinations and isn't applicable to a fraudulent study. Can anyone assess the journal quality? Nutrients (journal) says multiple editors resigned in 2018 in protest of pressure to accept low quality articles. Checking MEDLINE indexing would be good as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I confirmed MEDLINE indexing. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A MDPI journal? No thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the skepticism, but we'd need a policy reason not to acknowledge it alongside this one, which is cited on the COVID-19 article. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is WP:V. MDPI journals are questionable sources, and so for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, not usable. Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly curious if there's existing consensus regarding MDPI's general unreliability. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable. So not suitable for surprising claims. Check out multiple past discussions at WP:RSN/WP:MEDRS or WP:RSP to see previous discussions. (And in any case this dubious article does not say vitamin D prevents infection or is a good alternative to vaccinces). Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn Does Wikipedia have a list of acceptable journals? When I became an editor, someone told me that for WP:MEDRS the journal must be in MEDLINE. WP:MEDRS doesn't say that by the way. If that's the actual policy, WP:MEDRS should be updated. Getting back to this topic, this journal is in MEDLINE. Not just MEDLINE, but Index Medicus. It's not listed in WP:RSP. You're saying that's not good enough. You and other experienced editors must know the policy, but if it's not in WP:MEDRS, no one else knows what it is. Where's the list of allowable journals? Isabela31 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such list, and it would be crass to attempt such. You're wrong: MDPI journals are listed in RSP. Also see WP:CRAPWATCH. For misinformation, we should use reliable sources on misinformation rather than trying to WP:SYNTHesize pro-fringe counterpoints from iffy sources. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NIH guidelines on Ivermectin not appropriate for article?

Alexbrn has stated that the NIH guidelines on using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 offer "too much detail" and that "this is the wrong article" for summarizing the NIH's recommendations on ivermectin use with respect to COVID-19. I asked Alexbrn to explain why the NIH guidelines are not appropriate in this article on this talk page, but he declined to do so and instead reverted my edit for a second time. It appears from his talk page that Alexbrn has engaged in repeated edit wars across Wikipedia, so rather than provoke another edit war, I have left the page as it is, and requested (for a second time) that he explain his objections on this talk page. Lenschulwitz (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_misinformation&oldid=1059354210"