Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 misinformation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dinglelingy (talk | contribs) at 13:08, 14 May 2021 (→‎Science Letter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

|topic= not specified. Available options:

Topic codeArea of conflictDecision linked to
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=aa}}politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or bothWikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=crypto}}blockchain and cryptocurrenciesWikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=kurd}}Kurds and KurdistanWikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=mj}}Michael JacksonWikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=pw}}professional wrestlingWikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=rusukr}}the Russo-Ukrainian WarWikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=sasg}}South Asian social groupsWikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=syria}}the Syrian Civil War and ISILWikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=uku}}measurement units in the United KingdomWikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=uyghur}}Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocideWikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

New Slate interview with MIT/Harvard genetic engineer on lab leak theory

https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/covid-lab-leak-theory-pandemic-research.html

Make of this what you will. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undo revert. This is new information from a reliable source that is relevant to the ongoing discussion over whether the lab leak theory belongs in this article. It was wrong of RandomCanadian to remove it. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)![reply]
You've been told about a half-billion times that the popular press is not acceptable to challenge the scientific consensus. WP:DROPTHESTICK, or assume the consequences, this is beyond disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 100 % scientific consensus that excludes the laboratory hypothesis. This is not possible at the present stage of research. Laboratories are per se not research subjects - and therefore strict scientific standards do not apply here. As far as the Wuhan laboratory publications are concerned, they themselves provide enough evidence - which at least does not exclude the laboratory hypothesis. Here you can find a lot of the Wuhan publications. The laboratory issue is a major topic of the world public and as in other WP articles we should and must quote quite serious media here e.g. NZZ and reflect the public discussion. This is not only an issue of science but also of international politics for e.g. between China and the USA. Wikipedia is also not a forum to spread unverified Chinese stories of state propaganda - that the Labor hypothesis under misinformation fits very well into the logic of the Chinese Communist Party. The deep freeze thesis would certainly fit better here - as a possible hypothesis.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not only an issue of science but of politics". So stop conflating the science with the politics. As for claims of state propaganda, we might just as well mention that the prime spreader of misinformation on COVID is no one else but the man in orange. And the lab theory was much supported by him and his enablers, so I don't see why we should give any more credence to it than to the Chinese frozen food hypothesis. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The swiss NZZ unraveld Peter Daszaks role in the "gain of function" research with Shi Zhengli in the Wuhan-Lab since 2015 and his role as one of the initiators of the "Lancet" article from 18 Feb. 2020. He and Kristian G. Andersen more or less bullying people on Twitter ever since, doesnt create scientific consensus either.[1] The lab leak theory can not be ruled out. Alexpl (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trolls/covidiots/conspiracy theorists posting on twitter about minority hypothesis does not override science in reputable journals, which you can get a sampling of at WP:NOLABLEAK. That the virus was a genetic manipulation is long discredited by those, too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything clear - you agree with this position WP:NOLABLEAK: User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak - sorry without strong causal evidence -this is a conspiration theory.It is the same mistake to say - the laboratory thesis is 100% correct. How do you already know this ? Private rules do not play a role here. "So stop conflating the science with the politics" - One has to be blind not to see - that the laboratory thesis is a highly political issue. The scientific investigation of the laboratory thesis was explicitly excluded (= forbidden) by China - this has less to do with science, but with politics. Who does not understand this - has understood factually nothing.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're again misrepresenting. I never said the lab leak was not political. I said we should not confuse the political aspect (governments blaming China et al.) with the scientific aspect (most subject-matter expert scientists support natural zoonosis). But obviously you're too busy arguing that it should be dealt as a purely political matter (which it most definitively shouldn't) to grasp the science - you've clearly not read any of the scientific papers linked from that page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you don't understand the relationship between politics and science in China - the CP decides about truth of the origin, the corona virus in china - not science. "The People's Republic of China," says Basel-based China expert Ralph Weber in DW, "tries to control how we think and talk about China. There should only be good stories about China!" It doesn't seem to sound good when, in the Corona children's book "A Corona Rainbow for Anna and Moritz," Moritz, an elementary school student, says, "The virus comes from China and has spread from there all over the world." and "But that also includes telling people in China that things aren't going so well in Europe. That Europe is a discontinued model, that it has failed, that democracy as practiced in Europe doesn't work." In this way, he said, the People's Republic puts itself in a good light and makes "a kind of authoritarianism" socially acceptable." The French scientific study shows clearly that there is neither for the natural nor the artificial origin - at present evidences. You do not understand that.....--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're overly naive. Every large power on the global scene engages/engaged in questionable things ((formerly) British imperialism, Russia/USSR, China?  Check USA?  Yes, too). We shouldn't trust the politicians on matters that are clearly political and diplomatic posturing - hence why you've been repeatedly asked for MEDRS and you've only provided very weak sources. But we're going in circles and I'm tired of talking to a wall so enough of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China has engaged in hard-core misinformation on COVID 19 and the WHO investigation has been a victim of non-transparency. You have to be very naive not to see this. For you, China is the land of free science - you have to be very naive to believe such fairy tales--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Three things: Primo, that is not what I said, and you are deliberately trying to get a reaction (I said we shouldn't trust politicians of any kind, not just china). Secundo, your opinion is WP:OR and you should stop with the vague personnal attacks. Tertio. I'm done here and will not be further replying to such blatant trolling. Over. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian:, our colleagues Empiricus-sextus and Alexpl have expressed a viewpoint opposing yours and provided articles from reliable sources Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Deutsche Welle to support their arguments. I agree with their viewpoint and I don’t agree with the unsupported claims made in the WP:NOLABLEAK essay. Calling them trolls is a personal attack. Tagging ToBeFree. CutePeach (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan Laboatory and Biosecurity

  • One giant whopper in the above discussion caught my eye: "Laboratories are per se not research subjects - and therefore strict scientific standards do not apply here". The topic of where and how the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus first entered the human population is an unambiguous biomedical topic and thus WP:MEDRS applies. If anyone has a MEDRS-compliant source that would lead us to change the content of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin they should post the source at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Free clue: an article in Slate does not qualify. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The laboratory lack question is a biosafety and biosecurity issue - if the coronavirus came from the laboratory - for this all safety standards would have to be looked for - with special audits. It is well known -also in scientifc publication -that China has major deficits here: There is a pressing need to improve the regulatory standards system. In particular, policy research units and administrative departments should work together to propose necessary and prompt revisions of regulatory measures for biosafety, providing support and guidance for the development of synthetic biology, gene editing, and biological resource preservation and utilization. Moreover, biosafety laws are urgently needed.". The question of natural origin belongs first of all to animal virology. This is also what all the WHO investigations have referred to also to molecular biology. Then comes the human being (medicine), unless the virus would have originated directly in the human being, which can be ruled out.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The origin of the virus is a bio-medical claim and has important consequences in preventing future such outbreaks (notably as to questions of monitoring wild animals and human interactions with them). Since you seem to have found a scientific, MEDRS compatible source about biosafety, would you mind investigating and seeing if they say anything specifically about COVID (that article you cite is from September 2019, and while it makes a generic but urgent call for better legislation, any link to COVID would be blatant WP:SYNTH)? That would be much better than arguing based on the popular press, which is prone to misinterpretations and false balance due to politics. Unless and until such time that there are appropriate sources disputing the established consensus, though, this matter can be closed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't even need to go WP:SYNTH. Despite the low probability as a source for COVID, the WHO report recommended: Regular administrative and internal review of high-level biosafety laboratories worldwide. At which point, it's about WP:DUE again. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this is link to the actual WHO Laboratory biosafety manual, 4th edition and concerning COVID 19.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "established consensus" - not in science, not in the states/politics, not in the WHO, not in public opin(media) -and not here. It is still no evidence about true or false possible - about none of the hypotheses. China has banned or is censoring any publication on the labor problem - i.e. there will be no more publications here with COVID-10 reference, only what China do for biosecurity. But the scientific publications, also this from 2019: "Current status and future challenges of high-level biosafety laboratories in China" are in clear contradiction with the statements of the authorities that the laboratories are - safe - in China.

"*3.2. Inadequate biosafety management systems:

Since the promulgation and implementation of “Regulations on Biosafety Management of Pathogenic Microorganism Laboratories,” issued by State Council in 2004, a series of other regulations have been formulated by different ministries and local governments. These have considered the examination and approval of laboratory construction and accreditation, authorization of research activities, as well as pathogen, waste, and laboratory animal management regulations. Although these regulations wholesomely cover all aspects of construction, management, and eventual operation of BSLs, their enforcement still needs to be strengthened. Furthermore, due to different investment sources, affiliations, and management systems, the implementation of these laboratories faces difficulties converging objectives and cooperation workflows. This scenario puts laboratory biosafety at risk since the implementation efficiency and timely operations are relatively compromised.

  • 3.3. Insufficient resources for efficient laboratory operation

Depending on the size and location, building a modern BSL costs millions of US dollars, and in China the funds for construction are typically raised by the state, local governments, upstream authorities, and institutions. Additionally, 5–10% of construction costs are needed for annual operation. However, the maintenance cost is generally neglected; several high-level BSLs have insufficient operational funds for routine yet vital processes. Due to the limited resources, some BSL-3 laboratories run on extremely minimal operational costs or in some cases none at all.12

  • 3.4. Deficiency of professional capacity

In the process of BSL construction, operation, and management, highly skilled professional teams from diverse disciplines such as architectural science, materials science, aerodynamics, automatic controlling, environmental science, microbiology, botany, biosafety, and systems engineering are required. In addition, biosafety measures and practices are vital in daily laboratory operations hence a highly qualified, motivated, and skilled biosafety supervisor is needed not only for overseeing solid containment but also in laboratory risk management. Currently, most laboratories lack specialized biosafety managers and engineers. In such facilities, some of the skilled staff is composed by part-time researchers. This makes it difficult to identify and mitigate potential safety hazards in facility and equipment operation early enough. Nonetheless, biosafety awareness, professional knowledge, and operational skill training still need to be improved among laboratory personnel."

There is scientific evidence that labs in China have safety problems - and yes, this is part of COVID 19 - the biosafety law was strengthened because of COVID 19 by Chinas President himself already in February 2021- see this scientific publication !--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good. We can mention that "Chinese biosafety law was strengthened as a result of the pandemic" - this seems broadly consistent with what is already said in some sources, that highlighted biosafety issues (not unique to China or anywhere else, me thinks) when dealing with biomedical hazards without making unfounded hypotheses. That doesn't alter anything about the hypothesis of a lab leak being itself unfounded speculation. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add it but the source you give is clearly identified as a "blog" and is written by a law firm; in addition to it's entirely non-neutral tone towards the Chinse government. The only other source that wasn't a Chinese news outlet (highly susceptible to being a front for government propaganda) was the Chinese ministry of health itself (see last edit on article, I have commented it in), which isn't that much better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now at RSN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That there are massive biosafety problems in the Wuhan laboratory was known earlier - there was even an article in Nature- Inside the Chinese lab poised to study world's most dangerous pathogens - from a governmental-Chinese point of view, the laboratory hypothesis is very unlikely - from a scientific point of view regarding biosafety, that is shown by the scientific publications - definitely not.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's not clear about "Editors’ note, January 2020: Many stories have promoted an unverified theory that the Wuhan lab discussed in this article played a role in the coronavirus outbreak that began in December 2019. Nature knows of no evidence that this is true; scientists believe the most likely source of the coronavirus to be an animal market."? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Empiricus-sextus: You're free to have the opinions you want to about the connection therein. Until the scientific consensus is that that connection should be made - meaning that a majority of reliable medical sources make that determination, we will not include that view as the "consensus view". I will point out here that you are displaying the exact reason that this is considered "misinformation" - you are grasping at multiple dubious/unrelated/unreliable claims and trying to use them to say that the hypothesis is more reliable than it really is. Until multiple reliable medical sources say that that is related to COVID - which they haven't yet, because otherwise you'd be able to easily find and link us to them - which you haven't done yet - until that happens, we won't say it is linked in Wikipedia voice. We don't try and connect things ourself - that is synthesis and original research and is not permitted. If you cannot provide a link to a MEDRS that explicitly states something about the lab leak hypothesis that's not already included, then you need to stop wasting people's time here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this page for some time now, and it's stunning how the goalposts are continually shifted by those who do not want the lab leak hypothesis talked about. First, it was said that the lab leak hypothesis needed to have some evidence, any evidence, to demonstrate it was not a disinformative conspiracy theory dreamed up by lunatics. Then, the goalposts shifted, and it was claimed that reliable evidence was needed before anyone could speak of the lab leak hypothesis. Now, you have actually said that a majority of reliable medical sources will need to support the lab leak hypothesis before it can be mentioned on Wikipedia! I will not elaborate further, as (respectfully and intending no offense) this discussion has become prima facie absurd.2600:1700:FE20:2390:AC0E:8C65:A040:2209 (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Watching is not enough: you need to actually read it. I copy here the crucial sentence of which you quoted only the first half: Until [..] a majority of reliable medical sources make that determination, we will not include that view as the "consensus view".
So, nobody said that a majority of sources is needed for just mentioning the lab leak idea. Actually, the lab leak fans actually want it not to be mentioned here, since this article is about misinformation and they think is is information, but I will ignore that and assume you mean "mention it in other articles, as a serious hypothesis".
Also, I searched the archives for the phrase "any evidence" and did not find any place where anybody demanded "some evidence, any evidence". But, assuming someone actually said something like this, did you really assume that there would be a consensus among Wikipedia users to add anything to an article, let alone a medical article, based on unreliable evidence? Dream on.
Those "shifting goalposts" are a hallucination of yours. They have remained in the same place all the time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The "goalposts" are, and always have been the WP:PAGs, and ay editor going against them can get taken to WP:AIN where the uninvolved community as a whole can consider the matter and any miscreants sanctioned. This has happened a few times already. There's a good summary of how policies apply at WP:NOLABLEAK. It's my impression that there are some true believers out there who are seriously deluded about Wikipedia and the lab leak because ... they have to be to keep their beliefs alive. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have only answered the Bio Wooper question above and quoted four scientific publications regarding biosafety in China here. There is a very complex discussion also in relation to COVID 19 (we not discussed here) - all this has nothing directly to do with medicine and missinformation - but without the clarification and testing of the biosafety issues, one can neither verify nor falsify the laboratory thesis. A completely different question is whether it is a natural or artificial virus. It was only about a differentiated clarification - without this necessarily having to be in the article, possibly in another article. I was not interested in a synthesis here, but only in presenting the scientific discussion on laboratory safety in China. These are scientific results or statements - what you and I think about it is indeed a personal opinion. But that does not play a role here.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into detail here, the biosafety and biosecurity issue of laboratories (connected with COVID 19) is massively on the international agenda - certainly not without reason. See also International Federation of Biosafety Associations.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except that has nothing to do with the origins of the virus. To quote from your first link "In the absence of sufficient biosafety and biosecurity, there remains an increased risk of accidental or deliberate infections and releases of SARS-CoV-2. These capacity limitations, either due to preexisting gaps or a lapse occurring due to the mounting pressure on the system, are detrimental to safety, security, and operational efficiency." - pretty clear this is in relation to research efforts on the virus (and not its origin). Any link between these statements and the unfounded hypothesis have no place here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to clarify with this contribution that the investigation of the laboratory leaks can be clarified primarily with audits and special procedures for biosafety. There was no mandate for this in the WHO mission - China did not want this and did not provide any documents and data here, not even on the state of illness of the laboratory staff. The following position applies to China (Embassy): "Aus dem Hochsicherheitslabor kann nichts nach außen dringen, was nicht nach außen dringen darf."/ "Nothing can leak out of the high-security lab that shouldn't leak out."....This is also the implicit position of the English Wikipedia -which I think is a little to simple !--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is your own connecting of information that reliable sources are not connecting. You're attempting to connect things to form text/views that Wikipedia should cover - and that's not permitted. Again - if you cannot provide a MEDRS that claims that the "lab leak hypothesis" holds any theory, it will not be covered as anything other than a fringe view/conspiracy. If you cannot provide that MEDRS that directly makes that claim/connection, then your other links are not appropriate for this article, because this is about COVID-19, not about lab leaks, or lab security, or things like that. You don't get to just say "I think this is connected" - reliable sources must make that connection. Please stop wasting peoples' time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The laboratory hypothesis (if the Virus break out the institute) can be scientifically clarified only in the context of biosecurity issues. The scientific publications cited here only show the biosecurity situation in China before the pandemic outbreak - and also the response of the chinese state. These are not "several dubious/unrelated/unreliable claims" - but scientifically proven facts. Substantially here I could indicate still substantially several sources. Decisive is only that here internationally renowned scientists of top institutions (Open Letter to the WHO COVID-19 International Investigation Team), published form the New York Times as well as statements like the USA (U.S. Department of State: Joint Statement on the WHO-Convened COVID-19 Origins Study) demand indeepened investigations, which clarify the biosafety question of the Wuhan institute. That there are many biosafety problems and accidents of laboratories, is described here in the Wikipedia extensively - List of accidents and incidents involving laboratory biosecurity. However, these are usually not published in scientific publications such as MEDRS, but in public media. Such incidents also occurred in Wuhan (before 2020) and were documented by Chinese media. That there are outbreaks from high security laboratories (even of pandemics) is an international scientific consensus - “The idea of an accidental release of a potentially pandemic flu virus cannot be completely written off.” (Nature 510, 443 (26 June 2014), doi:10.1038/510443a). There has also been a very broad discussion in the U.S. and also in Europe on how possible accidents can be avoided (The Cambridge Working Group).
I fully agree with you that MEDRIS must be the central source for all medical questions concerning COVID 19, but this question is about biosafety and this is in the end a more or less technical problem, of course also a political one. We will never see any study In terms of strict evidence-based medicine here. It is the wrong methodology to answer this question. For this reason, we have no choice but to consult other reliable sources.
I understand very well that we use MEDRS here, but to classify everything that is not MEDRES (incl. positions of states and WHO) as a conspiracy theory, so to speak, contradicts all our WP rules. If you don't know anything about biosafety, you should better not respond here. I see you are a proven expert in medicine but this is a biosafety issue for which other scientific backgrounds are relevant. If we don't include this, it remains as here with opinions personal opinions, yes even with the risk of misinformation by Wikipedia - for this reason the context of the scientific and technical biosafety discussion is central. This also requires sources other than MEDRS. The idological equation of the laboratory hypothesis with conspiracy theory (Again - if you cannot provide a MEDRS that claims that the "lab leak hypothesis" holds any theory, it will not be covered as anything other than a fringe view/conspiracy) is not verifiable according to the current state of investigation, science and international discussion. Unless you assume that the WHO director, various scientists, serious media, as well as 14 government leaders are conspiracy theorists.
There are not a few scientists who currently speak of the worst case of coordinated misleading of the general public on the question of the origin of the coronavirus pandemic - as I said, I also see this risk in the English Wikipedia. Clearly we need to clarify conspiracy theories, but to subsume the whole international laboratory discussion under this is total misleading. Dear colleague I do not want to waste your time here, but we need a neutral balanced article on this very fundamental issue. Basically the discussion is so complex that it makes no sense here and we need - I suggest this solution - an additional article on the controversy of the laboratory hypothesis including biosecurity topics !--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're still in the realm of WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK. No separate article on the lab leak (already ruled out by a previous MfD) and no arguing based on inferences: you've been presented with a boatload of MEDRS; none of them argue in favour of this. If you can't present sources, then your opinion is irrelevant. MEDRS is definitively the correct thing to use: this is the origin of a human virus; and it has a dramatic impact on prevention of future outbreaks. As for your misinterpretation of WHO statements and the rest, that had also already been addressed. "the whole international laboratory discussion"[citation needed]. Now you'll all do us a favour and instead of continuing your current behaviour, you'll either A) find serious MEDRS sources which argue for this (unlikely, as despite multiple injunctions to multiple previous editors none have managed to do so), or B) you'll stop bludgeoning the process and not listening. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fake tests

I cannot edit the article. Please add: https://factcheck.afp.com/hoax-circulates-online-switzerland-has-officially-confirmed-coronavirus-tests-are-fake. CutePeach (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biden asks Americans to wear masks for just his first 100 days in office (until ~ 1 May 2021)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-call-for-masks-first-100-days-in-office-inauguration/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55182309

https://www.cnn.com › biden-harris-interview-covid-mask

https://people.com/politics/joe-biden-ask-americans-wear-masks-for-first-100-day-in-office/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/among-first-acts-biden-to-call-for-100-days-of-mask-wearing

Drsruli (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And which of these sources calls this misinformation? From a quick glance, these seem to indicate Biden was engaging in wishful thinking and hoping that masks along with other factors would reduce the pandemic to a level that masks would not be needed for more than 100 days. Linking a request to wear masks to misinformation passes the duck test for WP:SYNTH, IMHO... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there's a significant difference between a changing promise from an elected official (in this case, likely as much to do with changing circumstance that couldn't be predicted, namely B.1.1.7) and misinformation. Unless there's misinformation that Biden is asking people not to mask after the 100th day, I don't see how this fits. See also: "15 days to slow the spread" not on this page.[2] Bakkster Man (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

The Wuhab Lab leak origin hypothosis does (no longer) belong here. At this point it should get it's own Wikipedia page that is more neutral and does not assume it to be misinformation beforehand.

Although there is no credible expert that says the theory has been proven, there are now a couple of credible experts including the director of the CDC at the time of the start of the pandemic (Robert Redfield) that say it is likely enough to be taken seriously as an origin of the virus. In the specific case of Robert Redfield he even told CNN that he believes that (At this point) it is a more likely origin of the virus than a natural bat derived virus origin.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/03/26/sanjay-gupta-exclusive-robert-redfield-coronavirus-opinion-origin-sot-intv-newday-vpx.cnn

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-idUSKBN2BU2J2

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56581246

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-wuhan-scientists-initially-worried-coronavirus-leaked-lab-2021-3?international=true&r=US&IR=T 80.61.240.85 (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Already discussed at length. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

"change Phenomenom to Phenomenon" Fix typo 31.41.45.190 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - thanks for pointing that out. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2021 (2)

"change asymtomatic to asymptomatic" Fix typo

"Change empty space near bottom to {{Authority control}}" Add content 31.41.45.190 (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - also done these - thanks for pointing out the typos. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions

Is it just me, or does the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions section only contain claims that TCM treatments are effective against Covid-19 with no mention of the fact that they actually aren't?

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from context (the name of this article) one can conclude that these claims are misinformation. But still, it would be nice if the text actually said it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lab leak discussion at SARS-CoV-2

Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Discussion_of_4th_origin_hypothesis. Discussion on how much due weight to give to the "lab leak" idea in the Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times

This story from The New York Times is very informative:

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is an interesting article. It may be useful for documenting various financial and social connections between various individuals, and for documenting how misinformation spreads. I would just caution that as per WP:MEDRS we need to take care to only use [[WP:MEDPOP] articles like this for non-biomedical purposes. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to this article may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information about the breadth of WP:MEDRS. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lab leak hypothesis needs a stand-alone article

I just saw an article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on the COVID lab leak hypothesis. This follows on scientists calling for investigation of the lab leak and analysis in a WHO report. Clearly, this is not a FRINGE theory the way that "caused by a meteor" or "caused by the Jews" is a Fringe theory. And the topic of a lab leak is clearly notable enough for stand-alone coverage, whether or not it happened. I intend to restore COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis as a stand-alone article in the near future; however I certainly will not restore the February revisions, as much of the 52KB of content there is problematic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This is the problem we are getting into again - any stand-alone article would be undue weight - the topic can be covered here and in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 - and I do think that a summary of the investigations should be contained in that article. It does not merit a stand-alone article and creating a standalone article would be a POVFORK and be rampant with undue information. At most, 3-4 paragraphs of actually encyclopedic, and well sourced information could be crafted about it - and investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is the place to do so - then if and only if it gets to be too big or too long, it can be split into another article carefully for ARTICLESIZE reasons. But no, it still shouldn't be a standalone article at this time, but I have stated that it likely merits discussion of the investigations, without giving the theory any credence whatsoever, on that page. And yes, it is fringe - because though you can find scientists who are screaming about it, very few are actually saying it's credible - the vast majority are saying "we need to close the door on the theory by investigating and disproving it" - which is not saying "we think the theory is potentially viable". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an argument that instead of a stand-alone page, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 should be the target of that redirect; there certainly should be more than 3 sentences on the topic at that page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "more than 3 sentences" as long as someone is crafting them to be due and not give more credence to the theory than it should have (virtually none). I think a retargeting of the redirect is a good idea, but would suggest that also the section for the "lab leak" investigations should have a hatnote to this article for further reading. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've duplicated 3 paragraphs of content from here to Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Wuhan_lab_leak_story, and plan to spend the next hour or so expanding that section. If it turns out well and nobody has objected, I will then re-target COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and some similar titles. I will need a hatnote along the lines of "this section is about scientific research into the lab leak theory. For theories based on political motivations, see COVID-19 misinformation"; any idea how to word that? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to take far more than 1 hour. A careful observer will note that none of the sources I mentioned in my initial comment would meet WP:MEDRS for scientific evidence regarding a lab leak; apart from "people with credentials are talking about this" I will not use them. It will take some digging to get to more reliable sourcing, presuming it exists. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to find time to do this, but I haven't had the willpower to do it after the everyday hassle of trying to stop people calling it the "truth" on here... Now that hopefully the disruption has subsided more of us can find some time to help you - but you're right that the biggest hassle is trying to find actual MEDRS for bio-med information. Obviously primary sources can be used for some of it (ex: the WHO calling it the "least likely" can certainly be sourced to them directly) but the meat of it that needs worked on needs MEDRS and they're few and far between and hard to find and digest. Regardless, your willingness to work on expanding the coverage of it in the investigations article is to be commended. I recommend trying to keep the "people with credentials are talking about this" to a minimum - maybe one or two sentences - as the more of those are included the more it makes it look like more than it is. The scientific consensus is still against it and while I agree (and haven't ever intentionally said it is) it isn't a fringe theory, it's still a theory which is against most of the scientific consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is why splitting the "scientific investigations" from the "conspiracy theories" is necessary. Arguments based on a furin cleavage site may be scientifically meaningful, yet the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is just about the last place I would expect such an argument; this "Editorial" in Springer's Environmental Chemistry Letters is the other article I've found but has some bizarre co-authors and may not be peer-reviewed. Arguments based on evidence of a Chinese government coverup are not scientifically meaningful, but may be relevant for a misinformation page where it is important to describe the conspiracy theories. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the position statement of a major health body, there's reason to say that the WHO study is MEDRS. Particularly since it's in agreement with other MEDRS sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:力. It's great to see someone interested in the science of the origin of Covid-19. Here is an MD approved review article from May 2021 going through the different possible origins of SARS2, including the possibility of transmission in the laboratory from a human cell line. The review article is titled: On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Did Cell Culture Experiments Lead to Increased Virulence of the Progenitor Virus for Humans? --Guest2625 (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Vivo is the journal of the "International Institute of Anticancer Research". That would place their expertise in oncology, not virology. In addition, the paper argues for actual lab origin. Given the papers in Nature and other high quality journals which say that it definitively didn't happen, this paper cannot be treated as anything but junk. WP:REDFLAG says that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, not unrelated journals. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not going to treat the article as "junk", on the other hand I would not use it to source certain technical claims, such as the likelihood of mutations at the furin binding site. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Suggestion #5 for an in-progress update to the origins summary, let's not duplicate effort if we can avoid it. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the potential for article about lab leaks in general? Lab leak currently redirects here, but there's been many past incidents.
— Goszei (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

REVIEWS BY SCIENTISTS

REVIEWS BY NONSCIENTISTS

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When multiple, independent strands of evidence leads to a conclusion, then in terms of truth-truth, the conclusion is likely true. If someone finds a specific near-ancestor from which zoonotis likely occurred, I give anyone permission to ping me and tell me how wrong I was. But it's unlikely. Now in terms of Wikipedia-truth, the lab leak hypo should be treated under WP:FRINGE/PS as an Alternative Theoretical Formulation, which describes it perfectly. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an article about misinformation. It needs to cover what that misinformation is, who is spreading it, what their motivations and MO are, etc. Any content about a legitimate "hypothesis" or any investigation belongs at the relevant article - not here. I have reverted 力's edit as it watered-down the on-point knowledge from reliable sources and introduced weaker, irrelevant material. That user is now aware of the general sanctions in effect here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Their edit really didn't remove any information or add any, it was primarily reorganizing it and removing duplicative information (we don't need to cover the WHO report in its entirety, really all this article should say is that they had a report considering it "extremely unlikely"). I agreed with all of their edits and I recommend you discuss specific problems with them here instead of just undoing them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In particular I object to the upgrading of "unfounded speculation" to "speculation", and the removal of the description of how the proponents operate from the Hakim source. I'm neutral on the reduction of detail about the WHO. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be mindful of the difference between Wikipedia reality and actual reality. I don't think we can say in article space that the lab leak hypothesis is well supported, at least not as of today. From a look-at-the-evidence point of view, the evidence is there. From a follow-Wikipedia-policy point of view, it isn't. I've written this up as an essay at WP:LABLEAKLIKELY. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The evidence is not there. Click on the green box that says "Sources" above, read the sources, then come back and tell us that you now understand that you were wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements to article content can always be made. However, the facts remain that there is (at this time) no evidence presented in support of this theory, and authoritative sources say the same, and thus a portrayal or insinuations saying anything other than that in Wikipedia articles is a non-starter and does no service for our readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On this note, I think we can be honest and say that MEDRS is mostly used as a tool to chuck out bludgeoning and sheer persistence by SPAs abusing crappy interpretations of cherry-picked news sources for POV pushing purposes. WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:BESTSOURCES apply, and we want to use our best sources for giving the authoritative consensus on the matter. MEDRS follows as an example of BESTSOURCES, but it isn't the only example; as I said earlier, if we had a renowned investigative journalist/paper doing a detailed, evidence-based exposé, then I would support that being in articles even though it may not be classed as "MEDRS". I know power to be a good editor, so I'm excited to see what they come up with. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers and journalists are not reliable for biomedical content, and especially not for anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Their remit is to get readers, not pursue science. If Wikipedia didn't do this, it would have amplified the bogus MMR-causes-autism "scandal" that newspapers (not just crap ones) reported in the 1990s. Renowned investigative journalists in particular are often prone to believing their own hype at some point. I am strongly in favour of following the WP:PAGs by the book. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
if we had a renowned investigative journalist/paper doing a detailed, evidence-based exposé, then I would support that being in articles even though it may not be classed as "MEDRS". If it's non-science info, then that's exactly what WP:BESTSOURCES says we should do. Lots of examples where this is important on the various COVID-19 pages, nobody is saying no news sources ever.
But I'd argue this also means that a investigative journalist's expose is among the WP:BESTSOURCES to use regarding scientific information, especially if it's in disagreement with a peer-reviewed secondary research study published in a reputable journal. Why? Because the additional layers of review and the expertise of the authors makes the secondary journal article more reliable than a (arguably primary source) journalist's expose which might be WP:RSEDITORIAL. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It's not like the WP:MEDRS guideline comes from nowhere, it's merely a clarification of the existing WP:RS policy for a contentious area. Basically, so we don't need to have this argument against those WP:CHERRYPICKING from WP:RS. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just no. Alexbrn is correct about problems with journalism on medical topics. Even some journalists who go on to do in-depth book-level research eventually come to this conclusion as well. The problem is that journalists for the most part are simply not qualified to evaluate a lot of this, and the conventions of journalism often involve picking and quoting from experts to show different views, without actually weighing those views according to evidence.

MEDRS is not just a subsidiary of BESTSOURCES, it is in many ways a very different set of RS guidelines compared to the rest of Wikipedia, and for good reason. There are a lot of aspects of medicine where it is very easy to misunderstand or misrepresent various things. Even good-faith editing can go astray very easily. MEDRS isn't just for bludgeoning SPAs, it's an essential guide that is used on all WikiProject Medicine articles. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS isn't about 'everything to do with medicine' or even 'all WikiProject Medicine articles'. It says so itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am un-reverting; I made three mostly unrelated changes and it is unclear in the edit summary which of them Alexbrn objects to. Based on the talk page, I will restore the (in my view excessive) description of speculation as "unfounded". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes I would like to make today:
  • I would like a more recent source on the speculation that certain genetic signatures in COVID suggest it was produced through gain-of-function research. This is a fast-moving field, ideally there should be a source from 2021.
  • We should discuss somewhere the research whether the outbreak started at the Huanan Wet Market (as initially reported in early 2020), or elsewhere in Wuhan.
  • Claims about a "Chinese coverup" are conspiracy theories, literally: they allege that the Chinese authorities in Wuhan are conspiring to hide the origin of the virus. We absolutely cannot use primary sources to describe this, and I have not yet found any good secondary sources investigating alleged Chinese coverups. If I find a neutral secondary source that explains why people are claiming there is a cover-up, I will add a paragraph to the article.
  • There are various "open letters" about this, a cursory investigation suggests they generally have both bona fide virologists as well as some people I would consider FRINGE researchers. I plan to leave "open letters" out entirely; we will have enough "some people say" without them.
There's also more cleanup needed for the split I started to do yesterday; nobody appears to have explicitly objected to the suggestion that legitimate research into lab leaks should be in a different article-section than Epoch Times politically-based speculation. I'm not 100% sure how to do that split, if you have opinions please suggest them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So long as anything in this article stays focussed on misinformation, as described in high-quality sources. In it not our job to dig out what we (editors) think is misinformation, let alone to sit in judgement of whether it is or not true. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a change to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 which will hopefully fix the issues I was concerned about. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental vaccines

I have removed this:

Claims that mRNA vaccines are still experimental

There is a claim that mRNA vaccines are still experimental. mRNA vaccines have been used by over 8 million people. At the moment there is no evidence of the development of autoimmune diseases.[1]

  1. ^ NWS, VRT (13 January 2021). "Check: in deze Nederlandse YouTubevideo wordt onterecht twijfel gezaaid over mRNA-vaccins". vrtnws.be. mRNA Drugs (therapeutic vaccines) have been tested in more than 8 million people over the past decades. At the moment there is no evidence of the development of autoimmune diseases. Based on this information, we may assume that the use of the mRNA technology is justified. - Answer from Professor of Medicine Drew Weissman - best known for his work with RNA biology that laid the groundwork for the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 - to our question.

because the answer depends on exactly how you define "experimental". In a scientific model, a thing stops being experimental when we know whether it works. But in a legal/regulatory framework, a vaccine stops being experimental when the government(s) say so. Most vaccines are not fully authorized, which means they're "experimental" in that sense. I think it is best for this article not to address this complex question at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't experimental even in the legal/regulatory framework - they're "unapproved". Unapproved doesn't mean experimental and this is actually the reason for the misinformation - they're authorized under emergency use authorization (though Pfizer has filed for full authorization) but that doesn't mean the same as "experimental". I agree that this sort of misinformation should be handled very carefully here if at all, but if it is covered here it should be made clear that "experimental" isn't a legal framework - and as such, calling something "experimental" has nothing to do with the authorization (emergency, full, or lack of any) whatsoever. Many experimental drugs aren't authorized at all - some are authorized fully while still clinically experimental (ex: under "fast to market" schemes for orphan drugs), and more. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Unapproved" isn't really accurate either, since they do have regulatory approval under the emergency use authorization. If you are looking for a good way to explain this using non-technical language, you might consider calling it "fast track approval", as it's somewhat similar to the way that some cancer chemotherapies get approved for use earlier than they might otherwise be used. It's important to emphasize that the use of these vaccines is explicitly authorized under law, there is no ambiguity about this, they simply applied for authorization under an expedited schedule that allowed for them to cut through some of the red tape and administrative delays. "Experimental" would imply either no FDA authorization, or that they were still going through the required HCTs. In this case they have already done the required HCTs, they're merely given emergency authorization to expedite their use until the full paperwork goes through. I can check the FDA website tomorrow for the full sources on the regulatory situation to back this up, but in the meantime, this is the best non-technical explanation I can think of. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link: The FDA themselves calls them unapproved because "approval" refers to unconditional approval in the US. An emergency use authorization is not the same as "approval". True "fast track" approval has occurred in the EU where the Pfizer vaccine (and some others) have obtained full approval through an accelerated timeline. In the US, that doesn't exist - they are not approved, they are merely authorized for use during the emergency. If the COVID pandemic came to a halt tomorrow randomly, the vaccines would still be able to be used in the EU forever - because they have approval there. That is not the case in the US. The EUA expires when the emergency is over - unless full approval is granted. The "full paperwork" wasn't even initiated on the Pfizer vaccine until this past week - and it hasn't been initiated for any of the other vaccines with the FDA yet at all. It's a very complex and complicated situation that takes a long time to explain - but there has been a lot of misinformation where the vaccines are classified as "experimental". They aren't "experimental" - which means that it is under testing - but they also aren't fully approved and are still "emergency use only". That's where a lot of the misinformation gains traction - because of poor understanding of "anything that isn't fully approved is 'experimental' and bad". But at the same time, we must be certain not to overstate the approval of the vaccines in an attempt to clarify/combat this misinformation - they aren't approved - but they aren't experimental - they're in between. I don't think saying "until the full paperwork goes through" is a good idea - because that implies that it was "accelerated" which it wasn't. The full paperwork requires a lot more work than an emergency use authorization - but a full paperwork approval would enable it to be used even after the pandemic is no longer an emergency situation in the US. Remember that this is the misinformation article - we should focus solely on those making unfounded claims that even with an EUA they are still "experimental" - and we should only discuss regulatory framework to show that they are not experimental. We do not need to explain here the entire framework and what the different levels/terms mean. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, as WAID says, the range of meaning for "experimental". The misinformation is not about the technical truth but invokes a narrative of "they're running a giant experimenting on people!". It could be hard to unpack this without a source that does just that. Perhaps this could be useful for false claims about the nature of mRNA vaccines? Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic subs?

r/NoNewNormal definitely warrants a mention. Maybe r/CoronavirusCircleJerk too, and also r/FuckMasks (although the latter has been banned already). We're not going back to brunch! Skippy2520 (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reddit thing right? Does reddit misinformation get mentioned in reliable sources? Those would be needed. Alexbrn (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are Reddit forums (known as subReddits). Without reliable third-party discussion of them, we can't really include them in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we don't need to link to the top conspiracy theory sub-reddits here. They don't support any information in the article, and probably fail the external link policy. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The driving adverb behind this.

Nothing in the talk page nor the article mentions the important question, why. Why is misinformation spreading? Is it spreading faster, if so why? Why are once reasonable persons now believing things like the vaccines will make you autistic and prime you for mind control? I am genuinely curious about this issue, it goes beyond the article in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caustic3 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, beyond what's already in each section, there's not a ton of scholarly information as to why - that's going to take years after this is over for people to be surveyed after the fact to ask them "why did you believe this then and why do you still or not now believe it". Many of the subsections go into who's been spreading the misinformation - and that's really all we can say at this point. It's not appropriate for us to, in an article, speculate on the "why" when reliable sources can't tell us yet - thus it's also not appropriate for us to discuss it here because we'd really just be speculating. If there's reliable sources you can provide on the "why", it'd be good to link them here so we can discuss including them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's that NYT article I added recently about echo-chambers and stuff, but not much else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To some extent this isn't answerable, at least not as a "why" question. We can answer "who" in some cases, where there is documented evidence of individuals and groups promoting certain claims. It is also important to emphasize that this isn't new, anti-vax hysteria has been around for decades, the most prominent example might be Andrew Wakefield's discredited and retracted Lancet paper. There has been previous evidence that belief in conspiracy theories tends to correlate with anti-vaccine beliefs, as well as broader belief in so-called "alternative medicine". And of course, hysterical conspiracy theories have often surrounded diseases. In medieval Europe it was pretty common to blame Jews for supposedly poisoning wells every time there was a cholera outbreak, for example.

    Now, finding good documented evidence from reliable sources is difficult, not the least because we're essentially looking for a reliable secondary source to report on what is by definition an jnreliabke primary source. Science Based Medicine has published a few articles examining the role of conspiracy theories in this pandemic that might be helpful. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Those two articles make interesting links with pre-existing conspiracy groups, but they're essentially editorials and opinion pieces. Does SBM have enough of a reputation that we could cite them (with attribution if required)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I closed the discussion earlier. It's an unanswerable question right now. We can point Caustic3 at our Conspiracy theory page, which has some reasoning why that kind of thing happens, or Vaccine hesitancy which goes into the history of this... but we don't have enough resources to answer why people are spreading misinformation specifically about COVID-19 yet. All we can do is speculate, which is WP:FORUM material. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RSPSS Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. Basically, we should be careful about citing actual biomedical info from them (but SBM almost always provides links to the sources for any biomedical claims, so use those sources instead), but for reporting on quackery and fringe stuff, they are a reliable source, and in some cases one of the few reliable sources that covers these topics. So for example they covered one of the most prominent researchers who promoted hydroxychloroquine as a supposed treatment for COVID-19, and so we could use them as a source for how the researcher misrepresented and promoted hydroxychloroquine. To the extent that they cover actual real treatments for COVID-19, or research that showed that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective, we'd be better off citing the peer-reviewed research that they cite. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

I think it would be more appropriate to change "his or her" to "their" under in the "xenophobic attacks" part of the article. Typhlosionator (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased from "his or her ethnicity" to "the victim's ethnicity," to be more specific. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Typhlosionator (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science Letter

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1.full

"Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable." Letter published in Science, co-signed by Ralph Baric. That officially makes lab leak hypothesis not a conspiracy theory. Should be removed from this page. --Cowrider (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cowrider, something does not need to be a "conspiracy theory" to be misinformation. The way something is presented can cause something that is technically factual to be misinformation. As an example, if I said "voter fraud occurred in the 2020 election in the US", that's technically true - but if I spin it in a way that makes you think it was more than a couple individual cases of such, or if I try and say that it caused the election to be "stolen", that true fact becomes misinformation. Many politicians and even scientists have overstated the level of evidence for this theory - and in fact, there's a reason they said "both remain viable" - that was a carefully crafted language to imply that it's on the same level as the zoonotic origin - which it isn't. It's viable, but that's only because it takes years, if not decades, to conclusively prove one thing or another in this field - so the reason it's still "viable" is simply because more research needs done before we'll have the data to conclusively disprove it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's misinformation to say virus originated from a lab leak, because there is no direct evidence to support that conclusion. It is also misinformation to say virus originated from a zootonic spillover, because again there is no direct evidence to support this conclusion. Science will eventually figure it out. Right now both hypotheses are viable. We can argue over probabilities, but it's wrong to say the lab leak hypothesis is misinformation. It's a significant development that a preeminent group of Scientists have published this letter in one of the world's top 2 Scientific journals. These are experts in the field, and they are specifically calling the an "accidental lab release" a "viable" theory.--Cowrider (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not. Because the prevailing scientific consensus based on all information available highly suggests a zoonotic origin. As such, as long as someone doesn't say "it for sure is from animals", they're not spreading misinformation - they're in line with the scientific consensus. It's not a "preeminent group" either - it's a group that about half of them have no microbiological/epidemiological/medical background - and the other half is no more than a dozen scientists. On the other hand, we can find many dozens of actual medical/epidemiological professionals who disagree with that - as such, the scientific consensus is against them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fringe group of Scientists (you might be thinking of another letter.) The letter's 18 authors collectively have over 4000 publications and over 494,000 citations[3], and have expertise relevant to the field. There are huge names in virology on this list, including Ralph Baric. This is a significant development in regard to the scientific consensus on virus origin.Cowrider (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)First, we can still document the existing misinformation that is circulating surrounding the idea of a laboratory leak. Secondly, that letter that you quote represents the opinion of a small number of scientists, it cites no evidence to support a laboratory leak, and merely calls for greater investigation. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"That officially makes lab leak hypothesis not a conspiracy theory." Unambiguous WP:SYNTH which, like the lab leak, as described by the vast majority of MEDRS, has no evidence to support it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't follow your reasoning. A peer-reviewed letter published in one of the world's top 2 scientific journals, signed by some preeminent Scientists, including Ralph_S_Baric, say "theories of accidental release from a lab" remain "viable".--Cowrider (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not peer-reviewed. It's a letter to the editor. Those are not usually peer-reviewed AFAIK since they're more often than not statements of opinion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The letter was peer reviewed. Kristian Andersen (author of the Nature proximal origins paper) was one of the reviewers.--Cowrider (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cowrider, source for this statement? It's not listed anywhere on the article that it was peer-reviewed for accuracy and scientific merit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers are usually not listed with the publication. The source that Andersen reviewed the letter is the NYT [4]. Note he merely reviewed the letter, he is not endorsing the contents, since Andersen is one of the leading proponents of proximal origins.--Cowrider (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Reviewed" is used in the NYT without the qualificative "Peer". This seems to be simply "review" in its more mundane meaning (Andersen gave an opinion on the letter - and to the NYT, not to the editors of Science - this seems to be borne out by his tweet - see below). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. "Reviewed" may just mean just mean Andersen read the letter and gave a comment to the NYT. It's still a significant development that (1) Science published this letter, and (2) that 18 prominent Scientists with expertise in the field put their name to it. Collectively they have over 4000 publications and over 494,000 citations. This represents a major shift on the view of the virus originCowrider (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weeelll... a letter you write does not become a reliable source by you having written for reliable sources 4000 times before. If they want their opinion to be quoted in Wikipedia articles, they should do studies that confirm it and publish those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no mention of peer review anywhere, and as I said I don't think letters to editors get peer review. There's only the editor's name. Even if your statement that the letter was peer reviewed was true (I'm quite confident it isn't), peer reviewers are generally not named or known, and Andersen's tweet here seems to indicate he doesn't quite agree with the entirety of the letter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are two related but separate bits of misinformation here. The first, which is implied by the phrase "lab leak", is that the virus accidentally leaked from the lab. The second, which was the original misinformation from the YouTube conspiracy theorist who started it all in January 2020, is that the virus is a genetically engineered bioweapon that was purposely released by the Chinese government. Both appear to be misinformation, but only the second starts with a conspiracy theory. The first is often combined with another conspiracy theory -- that the Chinese government and the WHO conspired to cover up the accident. Thus, any "not a conspiracy theory" claim must specifically be about the bioweapon or the coverup actually being true, because those are the conspiracy theories. Claims that the accidental leak is actually true don't count, because the lab leak theory is misinformation but not a conspiracy theory. And even if someone proves it was an accidental leak there would remain a bunch of people who continue to believe the bioweapon and/or coverup conspiracy theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go farther, only some information about an accidental lab leak is misinformation. Specifically, that which misrepresents the strength of evidence in its favor. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.
I'd go farther, some information about a zoonosis hypothesis is misinformation. Specifically, that which misrepresents the strength of evidence in its favor. Including claims of consensus in the scientific community. Zero data to support this. Anyone claiming scientific consensus is guilty of making this issue political:
"That opinion was seconded by Rear Admiral Kenneth Bernard, an epidemiologist and disease detective who served as the biodefense expert in the Clinton and George W. Bush White Houses. The letter, he says, 'is balanced, well written, and exactly reflects the opinion of every smart epidemiologist and scientist I know. If asked, I would have signed it myself.”[5]
“We’re reasonable scientists with expertise in relevant areas,” Relman said, “and we don’t see the data that says this must be of natural origin.”[6]
“Most of the discussion you hear about SARS-CoV-2 origins at this point is coming from, I think, the relatively small number of people who feel very certain about their views,” Dr. Bloom said. He added: “Anybody who’s making statements with a high level of certainty about this is just outstripping what’s possible to do with the available evidence.”[7]
My previous generous attempt at consensus [8]. My personal opinion is this section needs to go 'bye bye' replaced with a link to "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" Enough of this silliness. Dinglelingy (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And right there is the problem, some of it is BS conspiracy theorizing. So whilst the is an argument for re-writing there is not one for outright removal.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Dinglelingy (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_misinformation&oldid=1023114651"