Talk:COVID-19 misinformation

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

Add Jamieson, K. H. & Albarracín survey (via Nature)

Fox News has been particularly scrutinized for its part in amplifying dangerous misinformation. In a phone survey of 1,000 randomly chosen Americans in early March, communication researchers found that respondents who tended to get their information from mainstream broadcast and print media had more accurate ideas about the disease’s lethality and how to protect themselves from infection than did those who got their news mostly from conservative media (such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh’s radio show) or from social media. That held true even after factors such as political affiliation, gender, age and education were controlled for.

Discussion about Jamieson, K. H. & Albarracín, D. Harvard Kennedy Sch. Misinform. Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-012 (2020), in Philip Ball & Amy Maxmen (27 May 2020). "The epic battle against coronavirus misinformation and conspiracy theories". Nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 17:26, November 28, 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation from Cambodian government

If of interest, there's plenty of reporting on the Prime Minister of Cambodia downplaying the virus that could be added. See: 1 2 3 3 Arcahaeoindris (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

RNA vaccine

Wanted to add some info about misinformation pertaining to the use of RNA in vaccines (see RNA vaccine#Culture and society). Where would that fit? Alexbrn (talk)

Alexbrn, Support. I think it'd be a good fit for a sub-heading in the "Vaccine misinformation" section. We could mention the rumors about it changing a person's DNA. You might also want to do a main or see also to this article: RNA vaccine#Culture_and_society. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Minor typo for fixing

There is the following typo in the last sentence of the 'Casedemic' section: "....variables that cam influence PCR tests". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.218 (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting "Government" section

I don't know if this has been discussed before and what the status of that conversation was, but I am in supporting of spinning off the entire government section into its own article. The topic seems to be distinct and notable. Love of Corey (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Love of Corey, Support. I support spinning off any part of this article, as it is currently very big. If you don't spin off the entire government section, I'll probably be bold and spin off the United States Government section soon, as it is the biggest "sub-heading 1" in the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we should spin off the entire government section, just to get as much excess content out of the way as we can. Love of Corey (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Love of Corey, I'm fine with that. You left this open for 2 weeks, the tally is 2 support, 0 oppose. Probably OK to split it off. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that people who would oppose such a move simply forgot the topic even existed, and would therefore object if such a split happened. Love of Corey (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Love of Corey, I think WP:BRD applies here, as to most things on Wikipedia. Everything is reversible. I'll probably split this myself in the future if somebody doesn't beat me to it. Article is too big. It is 2x 116kb, 16kb over the recommended max prose size of 100kb in WP:SIZERULE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Covid in the US in 2019

@Pieceofmetalwork and Alexbrn:, I think the NPR article suggesting Covid may have been in the US in late 2019 should be retained. I get the argument that NPR isn't a MEDS source however, neither are the other sources in the section. The NPR article is reporting on the results of a specific, named study. I'm a bit concerned about how to handle the total section. The NPR article doesn't specifically mention the scenario Hanson mentioned but if the NPR report it true it lends credibility to at least part of the theory that Hanson mentioned. As such I think it should stay but perhaps the section header needs to be changed. Springee (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

We should really avoid unreliable medical sources amplified in lay press. The stuff about COVID being abroad earlier (there are similar claims about Italy) is borderline fringe - or at least raises a WP:REDFLAG - so the sourcing needs to be solid I'd suggest. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

But NPR cites a study by name. Would you be ok directly citing the named study? I don't think a single citation in that section goes directly to a medical article. Springee (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No, because it's an unreliable source per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Using that argument most sources in this article need to be removed. The entire California section needs to be removed since none of the sources are medical journals. That includes the interviews with experts who dispute the original claim (they didn't publish the counter claims in a medical journal). I don't see an issue with using the NPR article here as it directly links to the medical paper [[1]]. The article summary is very clear, "These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States prior to January 19, 2020." Perhaps we should cite both the NRP article and the medical article. Regardless, this is medical evidence that COVID-19 was in the US earlier than Jan 2020. I think you will have to show which parts of MEDRS is being violated here. Springee (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If the article is terrible that's not an argument for making it worse (and it ain't necessarily, since WP:PARITY allows the use of normally-poor sources for contextualizing fringe claims). The antibody "evidence" is primary research and this is often wrong, which is why it is not used for biomedical claims on Wikipedia per WP:MEDRS. We would need a medical secondary source. (The WP:WHYMEDRS essay gives background reasoning, if you're interested.) If in doubt, ask at WT:MED. In general, this COVID-19 topic is under general sanctions and adding health claims sourced to non-WP:MEDRS is sanctionable. This is meant to be an article describing misinformation, not propagating it! Alexbrn (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I just added the link to the article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. How does that not pass WP:MEDRS? This isn't a case of spreading misinformation. This is simply reporting what a RS says about the topic. The implied threat of sanction is really problematic and I would ask that you strike it. Springee (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's PMID 33252659. It's not RS for biomedical content, since it's a primary source (and if it were RS, the way it was used did not reflect its tentative conclusion in any case). Alexbrn (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think it's not reliable for this content? It's a journal of infectious diseases. This is a question about an infectious disease. I agree the results are tentative but that doesn't mean we should act as if they are totally wrong. It is reasonable to say there is evidence that the virus may have been in the US earlier than expected based on this evidence. We should not say "the virus has been". I don't think your objections are valid. I have opened a RSN question here.[[2]] Springee (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to read and understand the links I gave. You are repeating a very common misunderstanding about medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is you aren't explaining your thinking. Also, this isn't a case of medical treatment etc. This is simply a case of history at this point. When did the virus show up in the US. We aren't citing any review papers to say it showed up only after mid-January so why object to quoting a paper that says it may have shown up earlier? I would have no objection to removing the whole passage but if we are going to use new articles to say this information was wrong then we should be able to use a news article to say this study says there is evidence it might be correct (without overstating the conclusion). Springee (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Assertions about antibodies being present in a population is WP:Biomedical information, which needs WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Why? Why apply a sourcing standard that was adopted to protect readers from getting bad information to a question of when the virus was first in the US (a question of a few months almost a year back)? I think you are abusing the intent of MEDRS. Are you suggesting there is a dispute if these antibodies indicate what the researchers claim? Springee (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. MEDRS applies (as it explicitly says) to "all biomedical information". If you want to change its scope, argue the case at WT:MEDRS; here is not the place. Alexbrn (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Look at why MEDRS was created. It says right at the top of the page. Additionally the examples make it clear that not everything medical is covered by MEDRS.[[3]] So if we are talking about the history of development of insulin as a treatment for diabetes we don't need a review paper to talk about the work of Banting, Best et al. In this case if the article was arguing that the antibodies in question were or were not indicators of the virus I would agree, that becomes MEDRS territory. This is talking about this history of the virus in the US so I don't see that the standards need to be the same. Again, if all of this needs to be MEDRS level stuff then why are we accepting a BLP accusation that isn't backed by MEDRS? Springee (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As I say, if you want to alter the guidelines, then make your case. Anyway, reading the sources I now realise this is all a proxy discussion for talking points in US politics, an area I like to avoid. So pardon me if I don't respond further. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't assume what my intents are. That is not AGF. I do not believe your rational is correct which is why we are here. Springee (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to explain Alexbrn's thinking. It's not that difficult. Quacks, charlatans, and liars with political agendas try to get their misinformation about biomedical subjects into Wikipedia. To prevent this, MEDRS only allows those sources that are most difficult to infiltrate. There are many examples of primary studies being used to transport misinformation, the Lancet MMR autism fraud being one of the most prominent. Also, primary studies are often written in a way laymen misunderstand. So, primary studies are not good sources. Quoting bad journalistic sources quoting primary sources is bad, and quoting primary sources themselves is not much better.

This subject, "Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic", is obviously prone to misinformation, mainly by liars with political agendas but also by quacks and charlatans, so we try to be especially strict here. It does not matter which exact problem has inspired the MEDRS guideline and was its first and main application. We apply it here because it is needed here. The archives of this Talk are thick with attempts to give the liars with political agendas more say. Maybe that, in combination with the NPR source, is why Alexbrn thinks this could be where you are coming from. He cannot know it is just synchronicity again, as in those cases when you just happened to be, by random chance, always in favor of edits that make climate change denialists look good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's actually interesting, when I wrote "this is all a proxy discussion for talking points in US politics" I meant the material in the sources, but Springee took it to refer to their intent. Still, if the cap fits ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please AGF. Your statement was ambiguous. Rather that remove it you have doubled down. Springee (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If it's ambiguous, there's a good faith way to interpret it, and a bad faith way. I commend the former! Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The good faith way to address this is make it clear that wasn't your intent.Springee (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I did when I wrote what "I meant". Alexbrn (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, leaving the ambiguous statement leaves it for others to question only to have to dive down later to see what you meant. Springee (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, you are also making an argument that doesn't AGF. You are welcome to raise that argument on my talk page but not here. Again, there seems to be a double standard on sourcing. We are allowed to have non-MEDRS say the original speculation was wrong but we aren't allowed to use NPR or the CID study to say the virus may have been in the US prior to the earlier estimates. Springee (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY. Crank theories are seldom considered in heavy-weight sources (the authors have better things to do, see), so a lightweight source is fine for debunking purposes. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting NPR and CID are trying to promote a crank theory? Springee (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "suggesting" anything. I'm explaining why our WP:PAGs tell us we don't need WP:MEDRS to debunk crank theories, which you seemed not to know. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, but it appears that at least part of this theory may have truth behind it. Please note that this study was authored in part by representatives of the CDC (including the lead author). You jumped to the conclusion that the theory must be total bunk based on what? I agree with Pieceofmetalwork's view that we should include both what has and has not been validated about the theory rather than just brand it as "false" and move on. That doesn't make for a better article. Springee (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. We need to base content on reliable sources, not editors' speculation. Anybody re-inserting non-WP:MEDRS content for novel biomedical claims without a clear consensus is probably going to get sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nor is this discussion meant to be a place for red herrings. Discussions of article improvements are exactly why this talk page exists. You have jumped to the conclusion that MEDRS is the standard needed in this case. That is clearly in dispute. Repeating the claims of an article that came out of the CDC and is ready to be released by a quality journal can hardly be considered a "novel claim". Springee (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit unclear what this is about now.

Earlier, you wrote I think you will have to show which parts of MEDRS is being violated here. and I just added the link to the article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. How does that not pass WP:MEDRS? This suggests that you think the material is sourced to a MEDRS-compatible source.

Then you wrote We are allowed to have non-MEDRS say the original speculation was wrong but we aren't allowed to use NPR or the CID study to say the virus may have been in the US prior to the earlier estimates. This suggests that you accept that it was not MEDRS-compatible, but that we have apply the same standard for FRINGE claims as for non-FRINGE claims.

Now you say You have jumped to the conclusion that MEDRS is the standard needed in this case because Repeating the claims of an article that came out of the CDC and is ready to be released by a quality journal can hardly be considered a "novel claim". This suggests that you accept that it was not MEDRS-compatible, and novel FRINGE claims do need MEDRS-compatible sources, but the material is not FRINGE.

I am trying to keep up with your stance: does The NPR article doesn't specifically mention the scenario Hanson mentioned but if the NPR report it true it lends credibility to at least part of the theory that Hanson mentioned. still hold? Are you still trying to lend credibility to Hanson's FRINGE ideas, only switching the reason for another reason and then for yet another reason, without saying whether you consider the old reasons to be refuted, or are you now trying to argue for some other edit? This looks a bit like a Gish gallop to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Again you are making bad faith accusations. As I don't normally work in MEDRS I was, not unreasonably, surprised that a report authored by researchers at the CDC and other government agencies, published in a reliable epidemiological journal would be considered unreliable. Remember, when the other editor added this content to the article it was removed only on the grounds it was not reliable for the claims being made. That claim is that SARS-CoV-2 was in the US in the 13 Dec to 17 Jan time period. I early on acknowledged that regardless of the validity of this claim it may be considered SYTH to mix it with the theory Hanson brought to public attention. Had the objection been on those grounds I would have agreed. The problem is the objection is based on the opinion that this report is not reliable for the claim that there is evidence the virus was in the US in December. Looking at the MEDRS and Biomedical Information articles I do not agree this falls into the strict limitations. Yes, in cases where things like alternative treatments etc are suggested this article should follow MEDRS vs standard RS. This isn't one of those cases. The argument that this CID article is FRINGE or a crank theory is laughable. That doesn't mean the theory reported by Hanson was based on solid reasoning and the fact that the CID article says this wasn't wide spread certainly would undermine the heard immunity aspect. So if the argument for removal were that this content, while reliable, shouldn't be used to imply the original theory had validity, I'm OK with that. Note that I haven't restored this content to the article (regardless of why, we don't have consensus so it shouldn't be restored) so all the implied threats in Alexbrn comments are nothing more than bad faith accusations. Your suggestions of motive on my part are again bad faith accusations that have no part in this discussion. Springee (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

So the purpose of quoting the CID article is not lending credibility to Hanson's fringe ideas any more? Then what is its purpose now? The article is supposed to be about misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. How is it relevant to that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

As a reminder: This was the original justification. The NPR article doesn't specifically mention the scenario Hanson mentioned but if the NPR report it true it lends credibility to at least part of the theory that Hanson mentioned. As such I think it should stay but perhaps the section header needs to be changed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That the virus was in the US earlier than originally thought is relevant background. It should be clear there is no evidence to support the heard immunity part per the original edit. However, the current, non-MEDRS sources say they knew the theory was wrong based on his testing for antibodies. We now have data that supports that part. I believe this is why the content was added and why I support it. ImTheIP noted that there is now evidence that the virus was in Europe earlier than thought as well [[4]]. Again I ask why we accept a non-MEDRS source to say the virus wasn't here but insist on one to say it was just 30 days earlier. Springee (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We have no reliable source for claims that virus was around earlier than generally thought. We have tentative, suggestive, primary research that is possibly wrong. We won't know until reliable sources review it (i.e. secondary sources). Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion depends on how we treat this source. That it must be treated as MEDRS is disputed. It turns out there was a study reported on in September which suggests the same using statistical analysis of clinical admissions. This one was CDC in collaboration with UCLA. [[5]][[6]]. Again this seems like relevant information though it also does not prove (in fact it appears to further disprove the herd part by better establishing that the virus was not wide spread prior to February. BTW, this information is part of the time line article.[[7]] Do you think MEDRS applies there? Also here [[8]]?Springee (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that after pointing this out Alexbrn removed the references. Springee (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of material about China

What seems to be perfectly normal, well-verified content about Chinese misinformation (see below) has been removed both by CaradhrasAiguo and Félix An. This seems problematic, as the material is well-sourced and on-topic. I propose this be restored.

Leaked documents show that China's public reporting of cases gave an incomplete picture during the early stages of the pandemic. For example, on 10 February 2020, China publicly reported 2,478 new confirmed cases. However, confidential internal documents that later leaked to CNN showed 5,918 new cases on 10 February. These were broken down as 2,345 confirmed cases, 1,772 clinically diagnosed cases and 1796 suspected cases.

References

Discussion

I added the material in the first place. I agree it should stay. I am confused by the "soapbox" accusation in the edit summaries. The source is CNN. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Which was why I reverted the revert, the accusation of "soapboxing" was (at best) erroneous. I see no issue with the material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I too am baffled by this strange reversion (and even more by the second reversion which refers to the first). What is going on? In lieu of some credible policy-based reason this material shall be restored. Alexbrn (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it should stay as well. I am a bit puzzled that this material would be OK yet the NPR/CID report would be excluded on the grounds it isn't RS. Springee (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I also find the reversions baffling and pretty close to unexplainable policy/guideline wise. I can’t tell if the original edit summary is calling the CNN piece disinformation or Adoring nanny’s contribution disinformation but neither seem to be justified or explainable, especially on a page under discretionary sanctions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is baffling, if anybody would have done the least bit of homework: the medically-diagnosed cases (as opposed to those confirmed by PCR) were already reported here on Wikipedia on 12 Feb. The present version of the template makes it abundantly clear that the Wuhan municipal health commission had already reported the medically-diagnosed back to 10 Feb. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But anyway, how is a template created on 22 Feb relevant to an act of misinformation by the PRC of 12th Feb? Or are you saying we need to be clear that it's the PRC (not the medics) who are the culprits here? Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is absurd, the template is citing WP:RS which refute the notion (asserted above) that the PRC was publicly concealing clinically diagnosed cases on 10 Feb. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, so once we've got past the nonsensical messages and snide links, what you're saying it that CNN is wrong because of some unspecified RS? Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a corroborating source in:

• Philip Sherwell (6 December 2020). "Leak exposes how Beijing ordered under‑reporting of Wuhan coronavirus cases". The Times.

To quote:

China reported 2,478 confirmed new cases nationwide on February 10, even as provincial health authorities circulated a document — marked as “internal” and “confidential” — that identified 5,918 newly detected cases, more than twice the official tally released by Beijing.

There's also quite a lot about how Beijing is trying to falsify the origin of the virus, which probably merits some coverage in this article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is disruptive WP:IDHT. The RS is right there in the link to the version history, a live version being here; CNN had already reported the changing case definition on 21 Feb (again cited in the template). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

With The Times and CNN as sources, I think we're done here. Live versions of web pages are obviously irrelevant to what happened on 10 February, as is whatever happened on 21 February. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note CaradhrasAiguo has been blocked as a sock. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

ventilators

There's nothing on one of the most common lies spread about covid, that less people would die if ventilators weren't used.

• more information: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/ventilators-covid-19
• better for most readers: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200415/ventilators-helping-or-harming-covid-19-patients --Espoo (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Casedemic

This section should probably be removed. It's an indisputable fact that in many instances "cases" (positive tests) have been decoupled from deaths for far longer than any "lag time". The significance of that is up for debate, but I think this article should stick to provably false information instead of "interpretations/opinions I don't agree with". 108.208.66.155 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No, looking at sources it seems the term "casedemic" is very much alive in the crank-o-sphere, and it embodies a conspiracy theory. I have clarified the section using the excellent SBM source of 23 November as a basis - read this if you want to understand why "casedemic" is a myth that we need to cover. Alexbrn (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Daily mail is Boris Johnson?

Why is the dailymail making up cobr quotes being used to justify a section in the 'government' section of this article? The implication is that the British Government (and Boris Johnsons' name is, awkwardly, jammed in there) has spread misinformation...which is not supported by the citations. If that dailymail article belongs here (or anywhere on wikipedia) at all, it certainly isn't in the government. 81.135.234.139 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I've deleted the section you mentioned. Just because Vanity Fair mentioned it does not make it reliable. Mail On Sunday is an unreliable source per WP:MAILONSUNDAY. And it was quoting an anonymous source, which is unreliable per WP:RSBREAKING. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories should be separate page

Conspiracy theories doesn’t always mean “misinformation”. So a separate page is needed. ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

They don't "mean" misinformation, but they are a type of misinformation which, per WP:NOPAGE, make very good sense here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

ChandlerMinh, I ended up renaming the "Conspiracy theories" section today to "Origin misinformation". Also, I think the "government" section is a better section to split out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Dec 2019 cases outside China

Are studies suggesting that COVID spread outside of China before 2020 credible? If not, perhaps we should mention them in this article. [9][10] –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the source. A bit of a WP:REDFLAG around such claims. Research out of China would need to be treated with special caution, given there is RS saying the PRC are pushing for a "foreign origin" narrative. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Consider creating separate page for actual falsehoods vs. theories

The word "misinformation" implies that all the information discussed on this page is somehow related to false information. But that is not actually what the page says. It notes several examples of theories that have been neither proven nor disproven. For example, speculation that the virus was somehow linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been neither proven nor disproven. ("Ebright [...] said a laboratory leak origin could not be ruled out."] My point is that a theory lacking evidence is not the same as one that has been disproven. In this case, everyone seems to agree that we don't know where the virus came from. I would suggest separating information that has actually been proven false from information that is simply speculation without evidence. Conspiracy theories throughout history have not always been false. Scoppettone (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Most conspiracy theories cannot be "disproven". This pages makes most sense if all the crankery is collected together. Alexbrn (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The article's claim that every conspiracy/alternative/unproven theory is misinformation is itself misinformation. Wikipedia should stick to the facts, but never does. 122.151.240.183 (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Change name to "COVID-19 misinformation"?

The current title seems a bit long. Any interest in changing the title to be more concise? Option 1: "COVID-19 misinformation". Option 2: "COVID-19 pandemic misinformation". Option 3: keep same. Personally I prefer option 1. Eager to hear other opinions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• "Misinformation related to COVID-19" should be the title. Right now, the way it's worded implies that the article is about misinformation related to only the pandemic and not also the disease itself. My suggestion has ambiguity that serves the content of the article better without modifying the article title too much or being too lengthy. JustStalin (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Add section about debunking/fact checking that itself has become misinformation

Example: APNews "No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19" fact checking article claiming

No evidence has been shown to prove that ivermectin works against COVID-19

However there is a plethora of scientific articles and studies (including double blind placebo) that indeed show that it is an effective and safe treatment. Discussion about journalistic integrity of the AP could also be interesting.

Collapse long list of unreliable and/or irrelevant sources, copy-pasted from the "fake" journal article at ivmmeta.com

References: 1.Afsar et al., SSRN., Ivermectin Use Associated with Reduced Duration of COVID-19 Febrile Illness in a Community Setting, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3734478. 2.Ahmed et al., International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191, A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220325066. 3.Alam et al., European Journal ofMedical and Health Sciences, doi:10.24018/ejmed.2020.2.6.599, Ivermectin as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 among Healthcare Providers in a Selected Tertiary Hospital in Dhaka – An Observational Study, https://ejmed.org/index.php/ejmed/article/view/599. 4.Altman, D., BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.d2304, How to obtain the P value from a confidence interval, https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d2304. 5.Altman (B) et al., BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.d2090, How to obtain the confidence interval from a P value, https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d2090. 6.Anglemyer et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4, doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2, Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cd..0.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2/full. 7.Behera et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.29.20222661v1, Role of ivermectin in the prevention of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.29.20222661v1. 8.Bernigaud et al., Annals of Dermatology and Venereology, doi:10.1016/j.annder.2020.09.231, Ivermectin benefit: from scabies to COVID-19, an example of serendipity, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S015196382030627X. 9.Budhiraja et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.11.16.20232223, Clinical Profile of First 1000 COVID-19 Cases Admitted at Tertiary Care Hospitals and the Correlates of their Mortality: An Indian Experience, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232223v1. 10.Cadegiani et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.31.20223883, Early COVID-19 Therapy with Azithromycin Plus Nitazoxanide, Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine in Outpatient Settings Significantly Reduced Symptoms Compared to Known Outcomes in Untreated Patients, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.31.20223883v1. 11.Camprubí et al., PLoS ONE, 15:11, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242184, Lack of efficacy of standard doses of ivermectin in severe COVID-19 patients, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/..le?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184. 12.Carvallo et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.09.10.20191619, Safety and Efficacy of the combined use of ivermectin, dexamethasone, enoxaparin and aspirin against COVID-19, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.10.20191619v1. 13.Carvallo (B) et al., Journal of Biomedical Research and Clinical Investigation, doi:10.31546/2633-8653.1007, Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Topical Ivermectin + Iota-Carrageenan in the Prophylaxis against COVID-19 in Health Personnel, https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf. 14.Carvallo (C) et al., NCT04425850, Usefulness of Topic Ivermectin and Carrageenan to Prevent Contagion of Covid 19 (IVERCAR), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04425850. 15.Chaccour et al., Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-116547/v1, The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with mild COVID-19: a pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-116547/v1. 16.Chachar et al., International Journal of Sciences, 9:31-35, doi:10.18483/ijSci.2378, Effectiveness of Ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Patients, https://www.ijsciences.com/pub/article/2378. 17.Concato et al., NEJM, 342:1887-1892, doi:10.1056/NEJM200006223422507, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm200006223422507. 18.Deaton et al., Social Science & Medicine, 210, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005, Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617307359. 19.Deng, H., PyMeta, Python module for meta-analysis, http://www.pymeta.com/. 20.Elgazzar et al., Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-100956/v2, Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v3. 21.Elgazzar (B) et al., Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-100956/v2, Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v3. 22.Espitia-Hernandez et al., Biomedical Research, 31:5, Effects of Ivermectin-azithromycin-cholecalciferol combined therapy on COVID-19 infected patients: A proof of concept study, https://www.biomedres.info/biomedi..-proof-of-concept-study-14435.html. 23.Gorial et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.07.07.20145979, Effectiveness of Ivermectin as add-on Therapy in COVID-19 Management (Pilot Trial), https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.20145979v1. 24.Hashim et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.26.20219345, Controlled randomized clinical trial on using Ivermectin with Doxycycline for treating COVID-19 patients in Baghdad, Iraq, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.26.20219345v1. 25.Hellwig et al., International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106248, A COVID-19 Prophylaxis? Lower incidence associated with prophylactic administration of Ivermectin, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304684. 26.Khan et al., Archivos de Bronconeumología, doi:10.1016/j.arbres.2020.08.007, Ivermectin treatment may improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030028962030288X. 27.Lee et al., Arch Intern Med., 2011, 171:1, 18-22, doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.482, Analysis of Overall Level of Evidence Behind Infectious Diseases Society of America Practice Guidelines, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/j..nternalmedicine/fullarticle/226373. 28.Mahmud et al., Clinical Trial Results, NCT04523831, Clinical Trial of Ivermectin Plus Doxycycline for the Treatment of Confirmed Covid-19 Infection, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04523831?view=results. 29.McLean et al., Open Forum Infect. Dis. September 2015, 2:3, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofv100, Impact of Late Oseltamivir Treatment on Influenza Symptoms in the Outpatient Setting: Results of a Randomized Trial, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4525010/. 30.Niaee et al., Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-109670/v1, Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: A randomized multi-center clinical trial, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-109670/v1. 31.Nichol et al., Injury, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.03.033, Challenging issues in randomised controlled trials, https://www.injuryjournal.com/article/S0020-1383(10)00233-0/fulltext. 32.Podder et al., IMC J. Med. Science, 14:2, July 2020, Outcome of ivermectin treated mild to moderate COVID-19 cases: a single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled study, http://imcjms.com/registration/journal_abstract/353. 33.Rajter et al., Chest, doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.10.009, Use of Ivermectin is Associated with Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 (ICON study), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012369220348984. 34.Shouman et al., NCT04422561, Use of Ivermectin as a Prophylactic Option in Asymptomatic Family Close Contacts with Patients of COVID-19, https://clinicaltrials.gov/Provide..cs/61/NCT04422561/Prot_SAP_000.pdf. 35.Soto-Becerra et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.06.20208066, Real-World Effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and ivermectin among hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Results of a target trial emulation using observational data from a nationwide Healthcare System in Peru, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.06.20208066v1. 36.Spoorthi et al., IAIM, 2020, 7:10, 177-182, Utility of Ivermectin and Doxycycline combination for the treatment of SARSCoV-2, http://iaimjournal.com/wp-content/..oads/2020/10/iaim_2020_0710_23.pdf. 37.Sweeting et al., Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.1761, What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse data, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.1761. 38.Treanor et al., JAMA, 2000, 283:8, 1016-1024, doi:10.1001/jama.283.8.1016, Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Neuraminidase Inhibitor Oseltamivir in Treating Acute Influenza: A Randomized Controlled Trial, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192425. 39.Vallejos et al., Coronavirus in Argentina: Warnings and evidence on the consumption of ivermectin against Covid-19, https://totalnewsagency.com/2020/1..de-ivermectina-contra-el-covid-19/. 40.Zhang et al., JAMA, 80:19, 1690, doi:10.1001/jama.280.19.1690, What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/188182. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 05:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Adriaandh, thanks for the feedback. Are there any articles about fact checking websites fact checking wrong? If so, feel free to post some URL's on this talk page. If not, then this might be against our original research policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Novem_Linguae, Here is an article regarding problematic conflicts of interest of fact checking websites: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/?sh=4d36051e227f

I think a claim that anything is a "miracle drug" is ipso facto misinformation, but the precise situation is set out at Ivermectin#COVID-19. We are not saying anything unusual in the article here: APNews is being cited simply to source a statement about how a video went viral. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Saying that a drug is a miracle drug does not make it ipso facto misinformation - that is the main problem with most fact checking sites - they latch onto a single point of a statement that they might be able to "debunk" and then discard the whole statement as "fake news", much as was done to the huge list of scientific studies that has just been marked as "fake" right here without giving any references or motivation as to why these studies should be disregarded. If a cheap and safe drug is found that merely reduces the probability of contracting COVID by 20% it can be argued to be a miracle drug, especially to those 20% of people that will not die and their families. While it does appear that with the correct dosing Ivermectin provides a much higher level of protection.

Regarding the existing wikpedia article on Ivermectin, it is also falsely detracting from the effectiveness of Ivermectin. It references a slightly outdated meta-analisys of only 4 studies that actually showed Ivermectin is effective at all stages of disease and uses that reference as motivation for saying "There is only very weak evidence of ivermectin's benefit when used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19; there is no evidence for people with severe disease".

while the actual meta analysis in the study found: "The overall result suggests that there was a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality with the additional use of ivermectin compared to usual therapy only (P=0.04).Since the search period mentioned in our protocol registered on PROSPERO was from inception till August 31, 2020, data from the study by Hashim et alhas not included in the primary meta-analysis as this trial was published in the preprint server in October 2020 (21). In this study, out of 140 COVID-19 patients, 70 were randomized to receive ivermectin plus standard treatment and the rest 70 received standard treatment only. In the ivermectin plus standard treatment arm, the mortality was 2 compared to 6 in the standard treatment only arm. As a secondary analysis, when this study was included, the test for heterogeneity for the pooled studies was not significant (Chi2=0.45, df=2, (P=0.80), I2=0%) and pooled OR was 0.50 (95%CI: 0.29 to 0.88). This suggested that addition of ivermectin significantly reduced the mortality (P= 0.02)."

The meta-analysis is actually very positive for the use of Ivermectin especially in early treatment, but it is made out to say that it is not the case.

Finally, if the APNews article is only to source a statement about how a video went viral, where is the reference that is used to "prove" that it is actually fake news that Ivermectin is a very compelling treatment for Covid that could already have saved thousands of lives?

Miracles aren't real. And your commentary on PMID 33227231 fails to account for the very low quality of the evidence. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You are going to dismiss a panel of medical experts's opinion on their representative's colloquial use of the word miraculous? You are (and wikipedia in general) really showing a strong bias on this topic. Quoting media outlets unfounded claims that the testimony of experts in their field amounts to "promote fringe theories" but not willing to quote real scientific studies showing the effectiveness of a drug because it is not of sufficient quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge 'Washington Post article' and 'Vox article' sections

As it stands, the Accidental Leakage Theories section clearly violates WP:NPOV because it does not accurately portray the scientific community's safety concerns regarding the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These two sections should be merged into a more general discussion about lab safety, perhaps titled "Lab Safety Concerns". The following should be added to the new section:

In a 2019 article published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Lynn Klotz, a senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, argued that over time, releases of potential pandemic pathogens from high security BSL4 laboratories are fairly likely, and that human error is the cause over 70% of the time. In April 2020, he further elaborated, "Even if a lab is mechanically safe, you can’t rule out human error. Accidents happen, and more than 70 percent of the time it’s due to the humans involved." In a 2019 paper published in the Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity, Wuhan chief scientist Yuan Zhiming described "widespread systemic deficiencies with training and monitoring of high-security laboratories where disease-causing pathogens are studied". In addition, U.S experts and scientists who reviewed experiments at the WIV said the precautions taken by scientists would not necessarily have protected them from exposure to the virus. The experiments caused Chinese scientists to issue mulitple warnings about a novel SARS-like disease possibly transmitting from bats to humans.

JustStalin (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Accidental Leakage Theories

Ebright's quotes do not reflect his full position and should be expanded upon: He argued that the probability that the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaked from a lab is "substantial", citing a history of accidents that involved researchers becoming infected and lax safety standards at labs such as the WIV, and said the assertion that the WIV could not have been involved in leaking the virus "is not credible".

A Washington Post fact-checking analysis concluded that no scientist has been willing to rule out the possibility that the virus leaked from the WIV. This should be added after the sentence, "Other researchers have said that there is little chance it was a laboratory accident."

Intelligence agency statements

The sentence, "Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, claimed the SARS-CoV-2 virus 'likely' came from a Wuhan virology testing laboratory, based on 'circumstantial evidence'," does not accurately reflect what the source says. The word "came" should be changed to "escaped".

Also, it is very important to note that the US intelligence community has explicitly declined to rule out the possibility of a lab leak. Add the following to this section:

An assessment by the U.S. intelligence community explicitly declined to rule out the possibility that the virus had escaped from the WIV. An anonymous U.S. intelligence official said, "There’s been speculation: Did it come from a market? Did it come from a lab? We just don’t know."

JustStalin (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do think this section is way too long and unwieldy. Can't we say all that needs to be said in a few sentences? That some people have said the virus came from Chinese lab work, and while this is theoretically possible there is no evidence for it; that other claims it came from bio-weapons programs are bunk? Alexbrn (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There is way too much notable misinformation about this to be condensed down to just a few sentences. JustStalin (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Alexbrn is basically right. If this were proven true, it would have due weight for much greater coverage. Since it's unproven speculation, its due weight doesn't rise to a level deserving more than a few sentences, IOW a very short paragraph. -- Valjean (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

But it's not unproven speculation, it's a proven fact that the scientific and intelligence communities have so far explicitly refused to completely rule out the lab leak theory. It is currently the majority position that the theory cannot be ruled out, which I have demonstrated with multiple reliable sources. Omitting these facts from this article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. JustStalin (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ummm.....that's the nature of all scientific statements. There is no such thing as 100% in science, but there is such a thing as 99.999999999....% probability. Even the theory of gravity leaves open the door that there is a 0.000000000000000000000....1% chance it might be wrong. With those odds, would you waste bytes here or money in a bet that it is wrong? We need much better than that "in RS mentions" to establish due weight for more than very short mention here, something that can be easily managed with a few sentences. Which RS should be used for that? -- Valjean (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Since it's the majority position in the scientific community that the lab leak theory can't be ruled out, that fact and other claims/sources supporting that fact should be given more weight (than minority positions) in a section specifically dedicated to misinformation about that specific theory. JustStalin (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

When scientists write something, most of the text is useless for our purposes of writing encyclopedia articles. There is lots of detail and also some filler. We need to pick the interesting parts. It is obvious to everybody (not just the "majority", it's really everybody, for the reasons Valjean has given) that things such as leaks can never be ruled out completely, and when scientists feel compelled to mention it, that mention is just filler.

For those people who like the world to be like fictional thrillers and whodunits, where nothing is like it seems to be, that mention is highly interesting because it helps them fuel their fantasies. But why should we pander to them? This is a reality-based encyclopedia. That "fact" does not belong here and should not be given any weight. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The journalists in the articles I'm citing already did pick out the interesting parts. That's what this is.

I disagree that it's obvious to "everybody". Having the lab leakage theory listed in a section about origin misinformation, without explicitly mentioning that the theory has not been disproven, could easily mislead the reader into the false impression that it has been disproven. It could also give the reader the false impression that the claim (that it hasn't been disproven) is a minority viewpoint, which already happened in this very discussion. If experienced Wikipedia editors have been mislead, then it's obvious that this section is not clear enough on this point.

Your claim that "things such as leaks can never be ruled out completely" is false. It could someday be proven that the virus didn't leak from a lab, which would completely rule out the lab leak theory. And just because someone might use what is written on Wikipedia to "fuel their fantasies" is not a good enough of a reason for exclusion. JustStalin (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

We still have to pick the interesting parts from what the journalists write. This is not one of them.

I'd ask how on Earth someone would 100% disprove that idea, as opposed to showing that it is highly unlikely, but that would lead further away from improving the article. If "it can be 100% ruled out" is really a minority viewpoint instead of obviously false by definition, you surely can point to one scientist who holds that position in an RS.

You claimed that something "happened in this very discussion", but it is not clear to me what that something is. It sounds as if somebody "in this very discussion" got the impression that "it hasn't been disproven" is a minority viewpoint. But who and when?

There is a continuum between definitely 100% true statements and definitely 0% true statements, and the only ones who keep emphasizing and blowing out of proportion the difference between 0% true and epsilon % true, with epsilon very close to zero, are the fringe proponents who believe in those epsilon-%-true statements. Since we have WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE, we should not emulate those fringe proponents. Instead, we should ignore that tiny difference until it becomes so big that a considerable portion of the science community takes it really seriously rather than just covering their asses by saying as an aside they can't rule it out completely. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that it's not interesting. It's an extremely notable point that supports the majority position, yet is totally absent from the article.

I explained in my previous post that someone could 100% disprove the lab theory by proving that the virus first transmitted to humans elsewhere, or by another method, etc. Shi Zhengli is quoted in this very article saying that it definitely did not leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (minority viewpoint), yet this article is totally silent about the fact that the scientific community and US intelligence have explicitly refused to rule out the possibility (majority viewpoint).

Valjean's first post in this section erroneously called the claim (that scientists and US intelligence have refused to rule out the possibility) "unproven speculation" because he incorrectly believed it was the minority view rather than majority view. This section's lack of a neutral point of view is misleading to readers.

The scientific and intelligence communities have been increasingly demanding more information about the origin of the pandemic in an attempt to rule out the lab leak theory. Adding a couple sentences about the majority view that it hasn't been disproven is not "emulating fringe proponents". It's correcting the clear violation of WP:NPOV that is occurring by omitting it. JustStalin (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You folks keep making nebulous statements about more or less detail on this in the article. You have had enough debate about due weight. Please make specific proposals as to what should be added and/or removed and then form a consensus. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed trimming of the section

I agree the section needs substantial trimming. I took a stab at the first subsection [11] removing most of the one-offs and quotes.

Original section:

A number of allegations have emerged supposing a link between the virus and Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV); among these is that the virus was an accidental leakage from WIV. In January 2020, editors at the scientific journal Nature affixed a cautionary warning to an article by Richard H. Ebright who wrote about the WIV in 2017 and noted that the SARS virus had escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing before; the editors warned that unverified theories, unsupported by scientists, were being promoted to suggest that the WIV played a role in the COVID-19 outbreak. In an interview with BBC China in February 2020, Ebright refuted several conspiracy theories regarding the WIV (e.g., bioweapons research, or that the virus was engineered), but said a laboratory leak origin could not be "completely ruled out." Other researchers have said that there is little chance it was a laboratory accident.

On 14 April, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, in response to questions about the virus being manufactured in a lab, said "it's inconclusive, although the weight of evidence seems to indicate natural. But we don't know for certain."

Days later, multiple media outlets confirmed that US intelligence officials were investigating the possibility that the virus started in the WIV.

On 18 May 2020, an official UN investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 virus was supported by over 120 countries despite China's objection, A two-member advance team was sent to China to organise the investigation in July 2020, although the team failed to visit Wuhan in their three-week stay there.

References

Trimmed version:

A number of allegations have emerged supposing a link between the virus and Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV); among these is that the virus was an accidental leakage from WIV. In January 2020, editors at the scientific journal Nature affixed a cautionary warning to an article by Richard H. Ebright who wrote about the WIV in 2017 and noted that the SARS virus had escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing before; the editors warned that unverified theories, unsupported by scientists, were being promoted to suggest that the WIV played a role in the COVID-19 outbreak. In an interview with BBC China in February 2020, Ebright refuted several conspiracy theories regarding the WIV (e.g., bioweapons research, or that the virus was engineered), but said a laboratory leak origin could not be "completely ruled out." Other researchers have said that there is little chance it was a laboratory accident.

References

I think the subsections should be similarly trimmed back. The organization of the sub-sections around publishers and types of sources seems to give inappropriate weight to them, so should be rethought.

I'm working very broad brush here, so apologies if I'm overlooking important detail. --Hipal (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm the one that made the sub-sections. Before I added those, it was just a large section of unorganized prose. I'm not married to the current subsection names and groupings, feel free to improve them.

I think your copyedit looks fine. Looks like this section was originally written in a play-by-play, breaking news, add-a-sentence-a-day style. Now that the topic has stabilized, it's a good time to condense and summarize.

It may make sense to trim even more heavily. This is currently the largest "sub-heading 1" in the article. If it stays its current size, it may be a good candidate to spinning off into its own article. That is, if it deserves the weight. Trimming might be better. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation on misinformation?

There is a huge danger with an article like this that it conflates genuine misinformation with views that health authorities don't uniformly support.

Take the inclusion of ivermectin, for instance. Here are examples of metaanalyses on its efficacy in relation to C19:

"100% of the 10 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated reduction of 74%, RR 0.26 [0.12-0.56]."

"There are a number of randomized and prospective studies and all have shown efficacy in clinical outcomes ... (Khan et al., 2020; Nunez et al., 2020; Alam et al., 2020; Gorial et al., 2020; Chowdhury et al., 2020). ... HCurrently, there are 36 randomized clinical trials of ivermectin alone or in combination for ambulatory and hospitalized patients listed on clinicaltrials.gov."

And there are many more: https://c19ivermectin.com/

Unlike these sources, the section on ivermectin, as far as I can see, links to no scientific studies on its effectiveness, and makes no attempt to address the multiple studies showing positive outcomes. I am not saying that it works. I don't have the expertise to do that. What I am saying is that it may be irresponsible to include it here. And more generally, lumping together obviously looney theories with scientific research that is still ongoing/inconclusive may do more harm than good. Orthorhombic, 03:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)