Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Imputing anti-China motives

As media sentiment shifts on the lab leak hypothesis, the editing of this article seems to be getting increasingly reactionary. A few editors' instinct seems to be just revert everything, even the addition of italics to a journal name. In a section about the lab leak possibility, there's one sentence that really sticks out: "Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility, including to stoke anti-China sentiments." The reference is this Wired article. This sentence raises a number of questions: who are these people? What's the misrepresentation? How is their anti-China motivation known? And maybe most importantly, why does it matter? This article is about misinformation, not about the motivation for misinformation. I removed the sentence, but another editor restored it, saying only "Seems apt". I then added some clarification tags, so we can at least find out what this sentence means, but the same editor reverted that too, saying "Wikipedia cannot be more specific than cited sources.". Which is kind of a hilarious thing to say: we don't know who these people are, or what they have said, but it's important for everyone to know that such people exist, and that they have said incorrect things. Can anyone justify these reverts? Should we start citing WP:OWN? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The source says it's "Trumpists" doing the racist thing. Perhaps the article should just specify that too? Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I added two additional citations which hopefully clarify the claims. I'd like to bring attention again to the section above on Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 11#Specific examples of accidental lab leak misinformation?, which providing clearer examples in the article section dedicated to this disputed claim would also help clarify the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clarify the claims at all. Who are these people - "Trumpists"? If so, what does "Trumpist" mean - anyone who voted for Trump? Trump himself, and his political allies? The articles themselves don't seem to shed any light - this Time article says, "Deploying patently anti-Asian rhetoric, Trump and his team started a systemic—and roundly condemned—campaign in April suggesting that the virus leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan". There are various bizarre assertions here: that criticism of China is "anti-Asian" (a surprise, I would guess, to the citizens of many other Asian countries), that condemnation of the lab leak theory was in order even if the theory was correct - and finally, by the fact that this article is being cited, an implication on Wikipedia that the lab leak theory itself is misinformation. I would love to hear clarification on any of this. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, reading back through, I'm missing the source I thought I included, which made the link between Trump misinformation (including this week's statement that "everyone's saying he was right") and the backlash that meant dismissiveness against the bioweapon stuff spilled over into labeling everything related to the lab conspiracy. I'll try and find again. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Until you find that source, any objection to removing this sentence? So far, no one here has even been able to explain it, let alone justify it. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't revert until I find the better source, if you feel strongly about it. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you just said, but this does sound like the exact mentality that WP:OWN is about. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the existing NYT reference enough? "the American far right and members of the Chinese diaspora tapped into social media to give a Hong Kong researcher a vast audience for peddling unsubstantiated pandemic claims." and "Each saw an opportunity in the pandemic to push its agenda. For the diaspora, Dr. Yan and her unfounded claims provided a cudgel for those intent on bringing down China’s government. For American conservatives, they played to rising anti-Chinese sentiment and distracted from the Trump administration’s bungled handling of the outbreak." However, it is unclear exactly which variant seems to be referred to (Yan pushed the "man-made deliberate bioweapon" one; Bannon is said to have "pushed the theory about an accidental leak of risky laboratory research" [that would be GoFR, also ruled out if I read the scientific sources correctly]), although even the mundane accidental one has surely amplified such existing forms of bigotry. This mentions some of the political context (USA-wise), and again, like the NYT piece, mentions the existing China-USA context which informed readers are surely aware of by now, but does appear to be an opinion column so I don't think we should cite it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Sorry, I mean I won't stop you from making the edit if you feel strongly that the current sources aren't enough. But I wouldn't make it myself, and I can't guarantee that someone else won't revert. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Darn, I was hoping that you could guarantee that someone else won't revert. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me wiki that for you: Trumpism --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we've established that the gain-of-function research theory is not officially considered misinformation, so that rules out Steve Bannon. Which just leaves Li-Meng Yan, with her bioweapon assertions. The NYT article says that her statements have been seized on by those with anti-China sentiments, but I don't think it says that she herself is motivated by that.

Hob Gadling - great, so now we know that the spreaders of misinformation are "those exhibiting characteristics of a set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping power that are associated with Donald Trump". Well, that clears that up.

Seriously, though - leaving aside that this article should not be discussing motivations in the first place, I think so far we've found zero specific people who "have misrepresented information regarding this possibility" in order "to stoke anti-China sentiments". Can we just get rid of this sentence? Korny O'Near (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: I think we've established that the gain-of-function research theory is not officially considered misinformation, so that rules out Steve Bannon. I think we may need to clarify either this statement, the article text, or both. I think we agree that the WHO-evaluated theory of an inadvertent lab leak, includes the possibility of GoFR having affected the escaped virus. But simply mentioning GoFR doesn't give someone a free-pass from being described as having misrepresented information regarding this possibility. That's what we're looking for, misinformation around an otherwise valid possibility. Which, fair point, requires a direct example before we claim it. Do we agree that misrepresenting the certainty of findings (for instance, pushing pre-prints as "proof") would fit within the current description? Do you think there's room to improve the article text to make this more clear? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it would fit the description, but that doesn't mean the sentence is worth including. A statement like "Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility" is obviously true - there are 7 billion people on earth, after all. And even just among people who are notable in this context - politicians, journalists, scientists, etc. - there are tens of thousands or more of those, so whatever statement you make is bound to be true for someone. The question is: is it notable? Is it cited? Is it worth including in this article? I think the answer to all of those is "no". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It made more sense when the article went on to name specific people proliferating misinformation, but lacking those specific examples it doesn't make as much sense. So I'm in favor of removing it until we can cite the specifics. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a simple solution is just moving the sentence a paragraph down, along with the conspiracy theories (since Bannon et al. did promote the conspiracy theory supported by Yan's bullshit papers, and the NYT piece is bloody clear enough about the implications of that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Did Steve Bannon "misrepresent information" in order "to stoke anti-China sentiments"? If so, where's the relevant quote for that? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

[1]? "Mr. Bannon noted that unlike Dr. Yan, he did not believe the Chinese government “purposely did this.” But he has pushed the theory about an accidental leak of risky laboratory research and has been intent on creating a debate about the new coronavirus’s origins."; "Mr. Bannon pivoted his podcast to the coronavirus. He was calling it “the C.C.P. virus” long before Mr. Trump started using xenophobic labels for the pandemic. He invited fierce critics of China to the show to discuss how the outbreak exemplified the global threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party."... And much else which makes this clear without much doubt about the issue RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You could certainly argue that he was trying to stoke anti-China sentiments. But what information did he misrepresent? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"Promoting misinformation" (what I've altered it to, more in line with the given quotes) and "misrepresenting information" sound like two ways to say the same thing, and the first quote above is clear enough that Bannon "pushed the theory" and has been "intent on creating a debate"; and the hook of the NYT article is also quite clear: " the American far right and members of the Chinese diaspora tapped into social media to give a Hong Kong researcher a vast audience for peddling unsubstantiated pandemic claims." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RandomCanadian: I'd suggest that this is one of the potential solutions, so long as we have a source we can wikivoice the claim. I'd suggest, given Bannon is named later in the bioweapon conspiracy (sufficient?), we should either name him (and Wengui?) specifically and what they did, or find a better source(s) that more directly supports the 'multiple people, with the intention of anti-China sentiment' statement. Another option would be to split the statement if we can't reliably source the intent in the existing statement. I'm sure it's easy to cite "some people spread misinformation", and separately to cite "there was anti-china sentiment linked to origins" (whether that goes in this section or Xenophobic blaming by ethnicity and religion, depends on the source). I'd propose that, whether we add it to the cite tag in the article or not, the quote should be shared on the talk page or edit summary to help verify the source was faithfully represented. Like Korny O'Near, I think we need to make sure we're using up-to-date sources, which aren't using last year's mistaken descriptions of the theory (the reason I removed the list of Republicans from the article, in retrospect the citations got it wrong). Bakkster Man (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused here. We've already established that the "accidental lab leak" theory is not inherently misinformation - certainly, this article doesn't treat it that way. So why are we talking about Steve Bannon? If all he has said is that COVID-19 may have been caused by a lab leak, he doesn't even belong in this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Bannon didn't just push the "accidental lab leak" - the fact is he offered a platform for Yan's (obvious) misinformation (per NYT source already cited). Even some aspects of the "mundane" lab leak, including overstating evidence or misinterpreting the statements of scientists, including for more sinister motives ("In the Science letter, the authors note that Asian people have been harassed by those who blame COVID-19 on China, and attempt to dissuade abuse. Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas." [2]), is misinformation. Even the mainstream media is apparently taking part in this now:

At the assembly, Mike Ryan, director of health emergencies at the WHO, asked for less politicization of calls for an origin investigation, which have, in many ways, devolved into accusations. “Over the last number of days, we have seen more and more and more discourse in the media, with terribly little actual news, or evidence, or new material,” said Ryan. “This is disturbing.” [3]

Seems like a decent reason to avoid over stating the status of the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a lot of verbiage that seems (to me) irrelevant. Maybe I'm not grasping what you meant, though, so let me ask again: what information did Steve Bannon misrepresent? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

He funded Yan's misinformative papers, as the bioweapon section says. That should stay, IMO. I also think I agree we shouldn't name Bannon in the above section, that's just redundant and confusing. Unless we have an additional citation of specific misinformation beyond merely promoting a non-mainstream theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize before that the sentence had changed to "promoted misinformation". But yes, I agree with this - Bannon's funding of Yan is also mentioned in the article. There's no need to mention it a second time, in a vaguer way. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Persistent removal

I don't see any reason why this keeps getting removed. Of course, not everything and everyone related to virus origins misinformation is racist, but multiple sources attest that some aspects of the misinformation undeniably are linked with such attitudes - the twitter groups harassing scientists and promoting xenophobia, the Bannon et al. sinophobia, etc... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources that "attest" that misinformation is related to racism. Although actually I don't know why you bring up racism, since racism was never mentioned in the controversial text. So I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of sources cited on this page and elsewhere show how racism against Asian-Americans is linked to COVID-19 misinformation.

Here are a few:

The decision is notable because it shows, once again, how social media giants struggle to strike the right balance between protecting the public from harmful misinformation and enabling robust discussion of controversial ideas...the reopening of debate presents challenging issues for Facebook because the claim has also been associated with a wave of anti-Asian sentiment.

The activity follows a rise in anti-Asian misinformation last spring after the coronavirus, which first emerged in China, began spreading around the world.

First, the United States must stop scapegoating China. Leaders need to stop referring to Covid-19 as the “Chinese virus”, trying to blame China for the outbreak and feeding conspiracy theories about China launching the disease on purpose. Halting this kind of rhetoric can help reduce some of the discrimination against Asian Americans that has been sparked by racist comments surrounding the virus.

On Jan 24, 2020, misinformation that “Chinese passengers from Wuhan with fever slipped through the quarantine at Kansai International Airport” was disseminated through multiple social media channels.6 Although Kansai International Airport promptly denied the fact, discrimination against Chinese people has become widespread in Japan. #ChineseDon'tComeToJapan is trending on Twitter, and Chinese visitors have been tagged as dirty, insensitive, and even bioterrorists.

The study says that a “hate multiverse” is exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to spread racism and other malicious agendas, focusing an initially rather diverse and incoherent set of messages into a few dominant narratives, such as blaming Jews and immigrants for starting or spreading the virus, or asserting that it is a weapon being used by the “Deep State” to control population growth (see ‘Highways of hate’).

Some reactions may have roots in lack of awareness and understanding of historical events and cultural norms. The use of face masks is a prime example; the sight of East Asians wearing face masks on public transport and in communal place has caused panic and become a catalyst for rising levels of fear in some Western cities. Some of the attacks on Chinese students in the United Kingdom were reported to have been triggered by the so-called maskaphobia.

Sources

This is one of the most well-sourced sentences in the article, in my opinion. In both news and scholarly sources. It should not be removed, for that reason.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Maybe I'm just missing the root concern here. Is it the terminology regarding whether we describe something as 'anti-China sentiment', 'xenophobia', or 'racism'? Is it the link to misinformation? We might just be referring to different concepts, when we think we're referring to the same thing.

I'd also like to add the following two items to Shibbolethink's links above. One being the Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic article which has a wealth of additional citations, the other being the WHO Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases. The latter mentions avoiding geographic names (ie. 'China virus', 'Wuhan flu') in order to the minimize unnecessary negative impact of disease names on trade, travel, tourism or animal welfare, and avoid causing offence to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional or ethnic groups. I'd suggest that's a pretty clear link between misinformation (namely, intentionally incorrect names) and "unnecessary negative impact", so the better we understand your objection the more likely we can reword to avoid it and reach consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Terms like "China virus" and "Wuhan flu" are not misinformation, and neither is the lab leak theory. Is there any proof that violence has been caused specifically by misinformation? A lot of the citations found are very vague, talking about how violence was preceded by misinformation or that sort of thing without directly indicating a causal link. If there are any sources that directly specify a link, then please just cite those in the article, and leave out the rest. Let me remind everyone again that this is an article about misinformation. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

While I could imagine an (IMO, tenuous) argument for "China virus" being merely insensitive rather than misinformation (though I'd still disagree, and say the use fits into the broad umbrella of misinformation), I think "Kung flu" is unambiguously misinformation (coronaviruses aren't influenza, and the comparison was clearly made by Trump to minimize the disease severity). Time refers to all three terms alongside a broader trend of Trump et al Deploying patently anti-Asian rhetoric.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sentence we're discussing isn't linking the use of these incorrect terms (aka, misinformation) to violence, is it? We say it "stoke(d) anti-China sentiments" and "increased anti-Asian activity", which can be accurate with or without physical violence. Let's stick with discussing the actual wording, not a strawman version that nobody seems to be suggesting. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, it's just anti-Asian sentiment, not violence. (I literally didn't remember what the original subject was.) Anyway, "China virus" is very clearly not misinformation (it's a virus from China), and "Kung flu" is not misinformation either - it's an obvious joke. Let's try to keep some common sense here. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1)"Wuhan flu" would then be the corollary. And Bakkster Man's citation of the WHO Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases is key here as well. Calling H10N3 "China Flu" would be just as wrong. Same with calling Ebola "African Hemorrhagic fever." Both would be misinformation, and in both cases, we don't use such terms anymore in infectious diseases. But it also doesn't matter what is a joke and what isn't. Common sense isn't at issue here. We're supposed to follow what the sources tell us. Even if it's driving us off a cliff. If the sources are telling us something that you believe in your heart to be wrong, then we still say it. That's WP:V. Best PAG would be WP:V and best essay would be WP:NOTRIGHT. It doesn't matter what you or I think is misinformation, because the quotes I provided directly link what others have described as misinformation to what others have said is anti-Asian sentiments. If enough independently-generated WP:RSes are saying it, then we say it in wiki-voice. This is how we avoid POV, bias, and OR. You may not like it, I am sure there are cases also where I will not like it. But that's how wiki is.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, are there any sources that say that the phrase "kung flu" is misinformation? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a change of subject down a blind alley. We have sources that say misinformation in general is linked to anti-Asian sentiments, we even have specific examples (such as the Kansai International Airport situation above) plus several others. We don't need to debate the particulars of the term "Kung flu." Even if you were right, and that term were not misinformation, we have many other examples that are. Invalidating one example does not remove the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

All I said was that every citation on this subject should back up whatever the statement being made is. That's not fully the case now, but hopefully it will be in the future. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Well, are there any sources that say that the phrase "kung flu" is misinformation? I'd suggest we're now approaching WP:SKYBLUE territory. For the record, the lede of misinformation says Misinformation is false, inaccurate, or misleading information that is communicated regardless of an intention to deceive. Examples of misinformation are false rumors, insults, and pranks. All three terms are being referred to by sources as 'insults' and 'misleading' (or synonyms), and "kung flu" is unambiguously also false and inaccurate (Kellyanne Conway said so as well). So yes, it's misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, let's step back and use some common sense here. By your logic, addressing someone by a nickname is misinformation, since that's not their real name. (And if you a call a tall man "Tiny", forget it - that's a double violation!) I don't see where Kellyanne Conway called the phrase "kung flu" inaccurate - and even if she did, that's just one person's opinion. What does it even mean for "kung flu" to be misinformation? It's a pun that conveys no information. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Purple cows in Arkansas. This feels like it is hopelessly off on a tangent. Whatever the substance of the "kung flu" or the "China flu" designations, we have better stuff than that, and Wikipedia isn't a debating website so we shouldn't really waste time arguing over this secondary detail which we're not even planning on mentioning directly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, using an insult (according to the page we link) can be misinformation. But perhaps we're missing the more notable example of Bannon/Yan. Whether or not Time's linking of the two concepts is sufficient, Bannon's PAC's promotion and funding of deceptive pseudoscience to act as propaganda fits the bill. Whether or not we link it to Trump, I struggle to see the ambiguity in Bannon/Yan as "American far-right" -> "misinformation" -> "anti-China sentiment". Along with Shibbolethink, I agree that currently we have a consensus here with one holdout. I'd suggest that you'd need to take this question to another venue to get an outside opinion if you think that's in error, as otherwise we're at an impasse. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think an RfC would be in order if Korny O'Near wants to pursue. But all in all, I am skeptical that it would have a different outcome. This is very similar to our discussion down the page of the "bullying of scientists" line.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Pursue what? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the aforementioned content. You could open an RfC if you want, that's what we're saying.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted to remove it; I said (and I think this is the third time now) that the citations should back up what is being said. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: This is a bit dated (March last year), but it might be useful to make a mention about the naming here (after all, misinformation has been ongoing since the pandemic started), particularly as racist sentiments go: " In addition to inflaming racism, emphasizing the foreign or external origins of a disease influences how people understand their own risk of disease and whether they change their behavior." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who was mocking this whole topic as "Purple cows in Arkansas"? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

No, they were mocking your argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I urge every editor in this discussion to read WP:SATISFY. Consensus building does not mean unanimous support, and if a single editor needs more proof, the burden is on them to prove the inverse. Not on everyone else to satisfy that editor. If wiki worked like the UN security council (and thankfully it does not) then nothing would ever get done. It is also possible to AGF without satisfying the intricate demands of one editor. I'm not trying to upset anyone here, just saying it can be a waste of time (and it takes a lot of effort) to track down endless quotations to prove a point that a consensus of people already accept to be true based on the currently available evidence.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Should this article be included in Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump?

Result was overwhelmingly "Support." This was relatively uncontroversial, hatting per WP:SNOWBALL after 6 days stale. If the coverage in WP:RS massively changes, we can revisit. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Korny_O%27Near has now removed the category twice, and so I think we need to have a discussion about this. My position is that this article currently mentions DJT by name 22 times, of which I believe 4 are direct mentions of conspiracy theories he promoted. A 5th is more accurately described as non-conspiracy misinformation (promoting UV light and bleach-based cures). Examples include: the bioweapon origin (as promoted by Li-Meng Yan) the idea that COVID-19 death statistics in the United States were systematically over-reported (intentionally) the idea that pharmaceutical companies/the FDA are intentionally downplaying the benefit of Hydroxychloroquine and other quack cures the idea that the pandemic was over-promoted and over-emphasized by media organizations and Democrats to damage President Trump (referencing empty parking lots, for example) Also a direct quote from our article: "A Cornell University study of 38 million articles in English-language media around the world found that US President Donald Trump was the single largest driver of the misinformation." So, plainly, I think this page deserves to have that category. Thoughts?--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Support If we have sources that say that Mr. Trump has promoted conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 misinformation, and especially if we have sources that say that he has promoted conspiracy theories that are explicitly discussed on this page, then this seems like an obvious reason for inclusion. Additionally, I do not see how the inclusion of this page on that list would alter this article in any way. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Support (and de-facto already put back in) this is definitively a "defining characteristic" of this subject, and there are more than enough sources which attest to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Support Comment I think we need to maintain a distinction between misinformation and conspiracy theory, particularly for WP:BLP reasons. On my quick scan through these sources I didn't see a "smoking gun" linking DJT explicitly to COVID-19 conspiracy theories. DJT promoting COVID-19 misinformation, absolutely yes. DJT promoting Q-Anon conspiracy theories, also yes. But I didn't see the link to conspiracy theories about COVID-19 in the above links. For instance, neither of the two cited sources for the "bioweapon origin" included the words 'weapon' nor a reference to Li-Meng Yan's discredited pdfs, if they couldn't be used to WP:V the claim. I haven't gone through all the sources (in part because the ones I read first struck out so hard in making that link), but if a short list of sources (with direct quotes, if short enough to replicate here meaningfully) making the explicit link between DJT and COVID-19 conspiracy theory can be provided I will support. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Is this false death count claim not enough? It's alleging a concerted effort on behalf of the CDC to misreport deaths. I would assert that that is a prima facie conspiracy theory. Literally a theory describing a conspiracy of involved persons to mislead the public. Here's a source that directly describes DJT as peddling "the stuff of conspiracy theories" in reference to death count misinformation. Or the theory that a conspiracy is being perpetrated by the FDA to deny approval to HCQ. Here's a source that directly says "Trump Shares Conspiracy Theory About Hydroxychloroquine." It would be great if every time someone described a conspiracy theory they also called it such by name, but sources don't always do that. It should be enough that they call out DJT for doing it, and we call it a conspiracy theory in article space. Or I'm sure we could find other RSes calling these things conspiracy theories. To me, that's an encyclopedic summary.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Particularly your first[4] and last[5] sources are, IMO, sufficient to make a verifiable link. My issue was with gilding the lily by including seemingly unrelated citations that didn't make the link like these do. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Comment - I have no problem with adding that category to this article, provided it's backed up by text within the article itself (which isn't the case yet). If you add some or all of these statements and references to the article, and of course if the references come from reliable sources, etc., then the category should probably be added back in. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Support - Trump was, at the least, loose with his endorsements of theories, and at the most, crazy. My only suggestion is to avoid sourcing the association with Trump on news outlets with an evident personal battle with Trump (e.g. CNN), to try to sterilize this the most we can. Forich (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Sources

Spike Protein

I've been working on this section to clarify that there are no spike proteins in the vaccines. The question has come up whether or not we can use wikivoice to say "spike proteins are not cytotoxic." I think we need to quote an expert saying something to the effect of "the current scientific consensus is that COVID vaccines do not have a cytotoxic effect" or as I had it before "Anna Durbin, Professor of International Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Reuters via email that the spike itself is not cytotoxic." The source has this also good sentence "There is no proof that spike proteins created in response to mRNA vaccines are harmful to the body, scientists have told Reuters." I'm not sure how to say any of this without COPYVIO, so I think a quote is fine. The word toxic is a favorite tool of pseudoscience, because pretty much everything is toxic in the right dose and context. Especially hard is "cytotoxic" which usually means you bathe some disembodied cells in something, and that is almost always bad for the cells. That's why the Reuters author said "to the human body". So we need a sentence like "there is no evidence of cytotoxicity resulting from COVID vaccines." Do the current sources support that sentence? Or should we stick with a quote? DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I would avoid using the term "cytotoxic", since it just means something that is capable of killing cells. Sunlight is cytotoxic (especially for us redheads). I suppose the needle itself is technically cytotoxic. Obviously this gets a bit into the difficulties of copyvio vs OR, but we should be able to find a way to cite sources on this to say something along the lines that mRNA vaccines trigger the production of the spike protein itself, but there is no evidence that the protein itself is harmful to humans. A lot of the FUD surrounding any medical procedure is the use of technical language to make it sound more dangerous than it really is. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps worth mentioning: the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine consists of actual spike protein molecules, plus an adjuvant. Not yet approved. IAmNitpicking (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all good suggestions. The section is currently being edited. This was my last edit comment: "Trying to find the balance of accuracy and clarity. Specific facts we should account for: Spike proteins are dangerous and might actually be toxic, but just not in this context. Pfizer and Modena do contain mRNA, but Sputnik, Astrazeneca and J&J contain DNA (not mRNA) that then produces mRNA in the host cell. Only cells in direct contact with the vaccine produce spike proteins" Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Of course, some of the other vaccines (e. g. Coronavac) are inactivated whole virus particles that the immune system reacts to directly. IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Conservative media

• Romer, Daniel; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (27 April 2021). "Patterns of Media Use, Strength of Belief in COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories, and the Prevention of COVID-19 From March to July 2020 in the United States: Survey Study". Journal of Medical Internet Research. pp. e25215. doi:10.2196/25215.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Interesting source here about links between conservative media in the United States and beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories. But I'm not sure where this could fit in with the current structure of the article. Any thoughts? (ping Alexbrn). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

One possible structure could be a new section to discuss methods of spreading conspiracy theories? We cover social media in the context of preventing spread, but not in the context of it causing it. There are other related studies too, eg effects of YouTube and other social media on believing conspiracy theories, and the effect believing in conspiracy theories has on, eg, vaccine hesitancy; another new section on "Effects of misinformation" might be useful in this regard? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

On why this article should be either deleted, or drastically rewritten.

Encyclopedias are not supposed to force a conclusion upon a reader, hence labeling one thing or another a "misinformation" should not be something we, as Wikipedia editors, allow ourselves so easily. It must be left to the reader to decide whether something is a misinformation or not - otherwise what we are doing here is nothing but opinion journalism, which, let me remind you, simply goes against the Wikipedia guidelines. I would allow myself to say that the very existence of such "journalistic" articles on Wikipedia is disgraceful to the editorial community and something that must be fixed as soon as possible, because otherwise, with the current pace, we risk becoming a fully established propaganda platform sooner rather than later.
If deletion of the article is perceived as a non-option by the editors, a massive rewrite based on the principle of avoiding the word "misinformation" would have to be done in order to bring the article to a somewhat saner form. Ideally, the article should present the reader with nothing but a list of conflicting opinions and references to these opinions - only then the content of this article could be considered encyclopedic. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, because of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI. Wikipedia likes to call out bullshit, as part of its mission to reflect accepted knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

If you mean by "propaganda platform" you mean "what the experts say platform", yes we are going to be that sooner rather than later. See wp:fringe and wp:undue, we do not give ranting loons are conspiracy theorist the same weight as experts, to do so is WP:FALSEBALANCE. But if you wish to nominate it for wp:afd go ahead, you will fail, however.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Moon landing conspiracy theories shouldn't force a conclusion upon a reader? What about Misinformation related to vaccination?

We follow WP:FRINGE, if the mainstream has thoroughly rejected an idea (or labeled it misinformation), we reflect that here as well. Policies explicitly prohibit us from giving misinformation equal billing when we can reliably verify that it's misinfo. Unless you have a specific example of something we label as misinformation without reliable sourcing, your suggestion seems to be counter to policy. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Undue?

Moving this from @Shibbolethink:'s talk page.

Why is "Testimony of former Admiral Giroir to the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis" UNDUE? The guy was a highly placed government official. If you go down that path anything and everything can be arbitrarily deleted as UNDUE just because you don't like that side. JS (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

hi Jayanta Sen, the appropriate place for this conversation is the talk page of that article. but I based that assessment on the fact that we have covered this topic in extreme depth there, to the point of having many many voices about it. Not every single voice is due. In this case, due weight is based on the share of coverage in peer reviewed secondary sources. as per WP:RSUW. Please move this to the relevant articles talk page or I am be happy to...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Please move this thread to the article talk page.JS (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Now we have an Stanford professor and microbiologist David Relman saying lab-leak hypotheses are "absolutely legitimate" and are "plausible." Relman said the Wuhan lab housed a vast library of bat coronaviruses, including specimens from the caves.

"They weren't just studying these viruses. They were actually collecting samples from nature in the largest number with the greatest diversity of almost any place on the planet," he said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-wuhan-lab-leak-theory/

If Relman's opinions are added, will that also be deleted as UNDUE? This article is a disgrace.

JS (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What's your content concern relative to this article? Does this article not already mention that some lab-leak scenarios are plausible? Bakkster Man (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

My concern is that relevant material from RS supporting the lab leak hypothesis is arbitrarily deleted under the pretense of being UNDUE. Best, JS (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the misinformation article, though, and we only mention the plausible theories on this article in order to distinguish between those which are plausible and those which are not (both according to the mainstream view). Could you link some diffs you find problematic, if you're still concerned? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In what way do you disagree that these quotations are WP:UNDUE? From one editor to another, I would give you the advice that arguments related to the text of the policy, and citing evidence in RSes, will go much farther than opinions and broad statements about the state of the article. That has been my experience anyway.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite simply deleting an opinion of a government official who was the head of testing of the US Admin (testing czar) as UNDUE is not appropriate.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-covid-testing-czar-testifies-183700319.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFGUaC3lbtkX-Mfjrb2pjGGOFZB13xe5yW5DfGrfq-yTWLhq5fXO757dgIxdlMiyBLR_R8oOz81oikzl-NcedQ_Jq4b9W3fw907JWdh2TB3uZTcsotvQptbVYRJq9dL2A6uMr-RC1szyzhPCihr0qf44-xqwTOR3ACF29CsyvSYa

JS (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Increase in US Ivermectin Prescriptions

Propose adding:

Despite the lack of FDA approval for COVID-19 treatment, an increase in off-label ivermectin prescriptions occurred in the US following widespread media coverage of the drug. "During March 16, 2019–April 2, 2021, national estimates of ivermectin dispensed from outpatient retail pharmacies increased from an average of 3589 prescriptions per week at the pre-pandemic baseline to a peak of 39,102 prescriptions in the week ending on January 8, 2021 (989% relative percent increase)" Caprilyc (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a very interesting stat.....do we have an info on how many people had negative affects. ..from over use or whatever? Seems out of place without any outcome.--Moxy- 02:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I found Safety of high-dose ivermectin: a systematic review and meta-analysis which compared standard vs high dose of ivermectin and found "no differences in the number of individuals experiencing adverse events. A descriptive analysis of these clinical trials for a variety of indications showed no difference in the severity of the adverse events between standard (up to 400 μg/kg) and higher doses of ivermectin." Some mild to moderate and transient ocular side effects in high dose group. Caprilyc (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Caprilyc: More trials have been done since that review was published. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This should add information about the meta-analysis that found "This meta-analysis showed that ivermectin was associated with reduction in severity of Covid-19 (RR 0.43 [95% CI 0.23–0.81], p = 0.008), reduction of mortality (RR 0.31 [95% CI 0.15–0.62], p = 0.001), higher negative RT-PCR test results rate (RR 1.23 [95% CI 1.01–1.51], p = 0.04), shorter time to negative RT-PCR test results (mean difference [MD] −3.29 [95% CI −5.69, −0.89], p = 0.007), higher symptoms alleviations rate (RR 1.23 [95% CI 1.03−1.46], p = 0.02), shorter time to symptoms alleviations (MD −0.68 [95% CI −1.07, −0.29], p = 0.0007) and shorter time to hospital discharge (MD −2.66 [95% CI −4.49, −0.82], p = 0.004)." and that meta-analysis that found "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. " to keep with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is a core pillar of Wikipedia and there's no reason to trash it just because there's a pandemic. This page is already embarrassing enough and Wikipedia's neutral point of views policies don't have to be trampeled on further. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Lab leak

Is it the consensus the article provides an adequate distinction between an accidental leak during research and a deliberately engineered and leaked bioweapon? I certainly sense the distinction is being blurred by some in the political sphere. The former is considerably less sinister than the latter. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: There are separate headers for each. Problem is that much misinformation has happened precisely because of confusion between the different scenarios, and because of misinformation proponents deliberately using words from scientists and politicians as fodder for their ideas. I think I added a decent source about that somewhere here or at the investigations article, let me check. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems like Wikipedia threw out it's neutral point of view policy here. This will get embarrasing as time goes on. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@ChristianKl:, haven't you heard? There are no lab leak! Wikipedia solved it! Someone call the WHO! --Animalparty! (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: The article is really funny. To take out three examples: "The Wuhan Institute of Virology is highly respected – Well-funded BSL4's such as WIV are not scary or concerning. The United States helped to train WIV staff in biosecurity, and the WIV's biosecurity practices have been independently certified by French inspectors.[20]:4.1 There are zero records of laboratory accidents at this particular laboratory."

Of course there are no records of laboratory accidents. After the Laboratory was oppened the Chinese didn't follow through on their promises about transparency towards the French. After SARS-I leaked a total of four times from the lab in Beijing and Chinese sources cautioned at the opening not to repeat those mistakes, there wasn't a lot of transparancy. On the other hand the situation was dire enough so that they told the US in 2018 that they don't have enough people to operate the lab safely and that's why the US helped to train WIV staff.

But even if the biosafety 4 lab was completely safe that's completely irrelevant given that Shi's lab did their gain of function research in biosafety 2 and not in biosafety 4.

"WIV's viruses are closely tracked" that might be true but the WIV took down their database of viruses and is not willing to share it with anyone.

"Lab leaks have been decreasing over time – As international standards such as BSL3 and BSL4 have become the norm" the might have been generally the norm but the WIV still did the gain of function research under biosafety 2. As far as leaks decreasing remember 2014 when the US had an anthrax and a smallpox accident in the same year? Things got so bad that the moratorium against gain of function research was created.

"This is tricky to pin down exactly, due to the Chinese government not allowing access to blood bank samples, and due to high false positive rates on COVID tests, but this evidence should not be ignored." While COVID tests have false positive rates, any specific finding of a COVID case would lead to DNA sequencing of the involved blood which is more expensive but has no false positive rate and more importantly tells us the exact sequence of the virus. Knowing about the sequence the virus had in the beginning is valuable information. Witholding valuable information in a time of the pandemic is a sign that China has something to hide.

The whole document is intellectually embarrasing and in ignorance of the underlying facts. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree - it`s sounds even like Chinese Propaganda...."WIV is the most safest lab and place in the world". Just to think that an accident is impossible and therefore is a conspiracy theory - is really bullshit.--Empiricus (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The line between plausible theories and misinformation/false is really blurred in this article Tisthefirstletter (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for expansion in: See also

Request to add Vernon Coleman in the 'see also' section. MrEarlGray (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't think he's closely related enough. IMO a category (People who have spread COVID misinformation) would be more suitable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See above reply Run n Fly (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Military-funded sensor can help detect COVID-19, but it's not a microchip

"Sensor is inert, not a microchip, The Facebook post gets several details wrong." - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/22/fact-check-post-botches-details-implant-detecting-covid-19/7299081002/

60 minutes interview: Dr. Matt Hepburn: "It's not some dreaded government microchip to track your every move, but a tissue-like gel engineered to continuously test your blood." - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/last-pandemic-science-military-60-minutes-2021-04-11/

--Bawanio (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Surgeon General's advisory

If useful: Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment (press release) Mapsax (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RaTG13? Ra4991?

I hope some of this is useful.

Great work, useful idiots of the media: Most Americans buy the unsubstantiated "lab leak" theory. https://www.salon.com/2021/07/09/great-work-useful-idiots-of-the-media-most-americans-buy-the-unsubstantiated-lab-leak-theory/

The ‘Occam’s Razor Argument’ Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak. https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/07/16/lab-leak-evidence/

Summary of January 7 2021 AVP Panel Discussion http://downloads.vanityfair.com/lab-leak-theory/1821COVIDemail.pdf

COVID-19-related dermatosis in November 2019: could this case be Italy’s patient zero? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjd.19804 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348373327_COVID-19_related_dermatosis_in_November_2019_Could_this_case_be_Italy%27s_patient_zero

Clues to Covid-19’s Origins Include Anonymous Skin Sample in Italy. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-origin-italy-11626028854

18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Dalek Supreme X (talk)

There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed Forich (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: Ah, funny, that piece is also (like others before it) making a comparison with the (non-existent) WMDs from Iraq... Now, none of the above are secondary, review articles in scientific journals (the sole source which is even in a scientific journal is a letter to the editor (beginning with "Dear editor")), so we shouldn't really be using them for scientific information, unless of course the subject is such that scientific sources haven't yet had time to cover the latest developments on the matter. Re. Salon article: the author appears to be notable, i.e. Amanda Marcotte, but she doesn't seem to be an academic in any field related to medicine or even politics, and she's clearly a biased source. It could only possibly be useful as an attributed statement of opinion, but, well, not too keen on that. Now, what is interesting is that she gives links to other, more readily useable sources, which we could cite instead, but I'm afraid they're not making the same kinds of links (and some of them are already cited, anyway), so there's not too much we can add based on this. The Snopes article might be more useful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:, good points, I tend to accept almost all sources as long as one can extract a bit of nice quality information out of them, I didn't mean to come across fully dismissive of salon, attribution is all that is needed. I went bold and used lots of pieces of the Snopes piece and edited multiple pages across the covid-19 articles, it was a relief to have that piece finally settling down matters that were left ambiguous in other sources. Forich (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

RT-PCR test controversy

A suggestion for an important addition to paragraph 3 : PCR testing Please advise on formatting and relevancy. This would require subheadings: 3.1 PCR tests can't detect infection (the current paragraph) 3.2 PCR tests produce false positives (my contribution)

In November 2020 a group of 22 scientists called the "International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS)", led by Pieter Borger and Ulrike Kämmerer, published a review report online[1] on one of the first RT-PCR test protocols for SARS-CoV-2 developed by the team of German virologist Christian Drosten[2] and submitted it to the journal Eurosurveillance that had published this protocol in January 2020. According to its main author, the online report received millions of visitors. It was widely circulated among lockdown skeptics and in the conspiracy media, but was virtually ignored in the mainstream press. The group claimed to have found 10 major design errors and conflicts of interest and demanded a retraction of the Drosten paper. The reasoning behind this project was that a faulty PCR protocol generates many false positives, and thus a "casedemic", and the Drosten protocol was still widely used across the world, thus legitimizing disproportional lockdown measures. After an external review process the journal decided that "the criteria for a retraction of the article have not been fulfilled."[3] Several molecular scientists have criticized the ICSLS review report for being, in the words of German virologist Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, "the usual mix of truth, opinion and falsehoods".[4] Virologist Ian Mackay concluded that it is more appropriate to investigate what PCR test designs are in use in other areas of the world, instead of focussing on just one research group.[5] Molecular biologist prof. Andreas Beyer concluded in an extensive 2-part review: "The Borger-Kämmerer text is pseudoscience, it is full of misconceptions, errors and flaws. Therefore it is ignored by experts for good reason."[6] The Eurosurveillance response concluded: "With more data and evolving knowledge, laboratories have since further improved the initial method, as per usual practice."[7]

[1] Pieter Borger et. al., "Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020", External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results, November 27, 2020, https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/.

[2] Victor M Corman et. al., "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR", PMC, (Euro Surveillance, 2020 Jan 23), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/.

[3] Eurosurveillance editorial team, "Response to retraction request and allegations of misconduct and scientific flaws", Eurosurveillance, Volume 26, Issue 5, 04/Feb/2021, https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041.

[4] Birgit Herden, "Härte kann man nicht immer einfach mit Wirksamkeit gleichsetzen", Welt, December 8, 2020. Quoted in: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy, Part 20, PCR-Gate: A Storm in a Petri Dish?, http://www.integralworld.net/visser194.html, Dec. 24, 2020.

[5] Ian M. Mackay on Twitter, Dec. 12, 2020. https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1337618320179150848?s=20, Quoted in: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy, Part 20, PCR-Gate: A Storm in a Petri Dish?, http://www.integralworld.net/visser194.html, Dec. 24, 2020.

[6] Andreas Beyer, "Borger & Kämmerer, Corona & qPCR, Pseudoscience & Conspiracy Theory Revisited - an Analytical Essay", Researchgate, May 2021. Quoted in: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy, Part 24, PCR-Gate 2: When Lockdown Skeptics Pose as Expert Scientists, http://www.integralworld.net/visser198.html, Feb. 9, 2021.

[7] Eurosurveillance editorial team, "Response to retraction request and allegations of misconduct and scientific flaws", Eurosurveillance, Volume 26, Issue 5, 04/Feb/2021, https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041.

FrankVisser101 (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Current consensus template

I created Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus) and filled it with some common recurring discussions. Thoughts welcome, as well as additions/tweaks to ensure it is complete and accurately summarises the discussions linked. Hopefully it helps prevent the constant, very long discussions that keep rehashing the same issues (such as the Segreto papers), or at least provides a convenient link to past discussions on the issue so we're not starting from scratch each time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, thanks for making this. Looks pretty good. My only suggestion would be to consider removing the XFDs, PROTs, and ongoing discussions at the bottom. I think the numbered FAQ format should be the focus. Do you plan to add this template to the top of some talk pages, such as this one and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll pop it into some talk pages, like how it's used at Talk:Donald Trump. The advantage of not having it as a talk banner is that it shows up on mobile devices (the mobile system doesn't support talk page banners or collapsing, but will show sections).

The idea behind the XFDs was that those were perhaps the only community-wide discussions on those issues. While I don't think the delete/keep result matters about the essays, the comments did express other opinions which are useful as a reference. I'm not really attached to the protection and am fine with someone removing that. With the "Ongoing discussions", I pinched the idea from Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Style_discussions_elsewhere -- a list of discussions around the encyclopaedia is pinned at the top. I think it's good to invite participation, especially with origins discussions often being scattered around XfDs or different noticeboards. But I agree the numbered consensus is the main focus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

No. 1 contains a double negative: There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021) which in general can confuse a reader. I propose we change it to There is consensus that the lab leak theory can not be treated solely as "minority scientific viewpoint" but instead requires in some cases to be treated less favorably.. Followed by a proper explanation that summarizes how we reached that consensus (I prefer we redact one instead of directing to some wall of text RFC) Forich (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the proposal reflective of the RfC closure? I took the first sentence from the close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether is not a negative, though. Not sure why you describe that as a double negative. That RfC was explicitly closed as no consensus, it would be a mistake to phrase it as such. All that said, I'd suggest that RfC was somewhat overtaken by events, namely the WHO report which explicitly treated one lab scenario as a scientific viewpoint. We very clearly now have a consensus, per the WHO report, that the laboratory incident scenario they evaluated is a "scientific viewpoint". Bakkster Man (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The statement "We did not convene whether the coin landed heads or not" (abbreviated as "We did not convene whether the coin landed heads") is a composition of We did not convene if the coin land heads AND We did not convene if the coin didn't land heads. It can be converted to "We convened we can't say for sure that the coin land heads". Granted, the same goes for "Tails", but in a mutually exclusive sample it should not matter which state of nature is used. Let's agree its not technically a double negative, but the converted phrase can be more useful in an actionable settimg. A stop sign is more concise than a "Do not continue being not still" sign. Forich (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster makes a good point in asking if the consensus in 1 holds. The WHO report validated in some way the scientific nature of the hypothesis, except that : it deemed it extremely unlikely; its the only MEDRS to mention it; it said it did not merit further investigation; it referred mostly to the version of the lab leak that is not a manipulated virus, just a stored sanple leaked. Other than that the two versions of the lab leak are so intertwined that calling it minority scientific viewpoint can be too broad of a brush, IMHO. Forich (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I agree w/ that. If scientists investigate a conspiracy theory for the purposes of debunking it, the mere act of investigation doesn't give the theory credence. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I suspect you'd need another RfC to overrule it, although I'm unsure how the outcome of that RfC has been applied. Usually NC solidifies the status quo, and the status quo at the time was treating it as a conspiracy theory. The phrasing in articles has changed slightly since then though, so I suppose it is unclear to what extent that consensus (or, more accurately, lack of consensus) applies currently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The relevant parts of the closing statement are:

There is no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a "conspiracy theory" or if it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". Editors who commented in the discussion noted concerns over false balance, the in-article weighting of viewpoints that depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views, and the coverage of the hypothesis provided by reliable medical sources. Editors noted that fringe theories and pseudoscience should not be described in the same way as mainstream viewpoints are, though there was no consensus that the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a fringe theory or pseudoscience. Many editors that support calling the hypothesis a "minority, but scientific viewpoint" noted that the hypothesis is falsifiable and has been referenced in reliable medical sources. Many editors that support calling the hypothesis a "conspiracy theory" noted the political aspects associated with the acceptance of the hypothesis, as well as the general majority view annunciated by WP:MEDRS that rejects the hypothesis. Not all editors seem to believe that the issue is one that can be reduced to a binary choice between the hypothesis being a "conspiracy theory" and a "minority, but scientific viewpoint"; some editors noted that there is a conspiracy theory surrounding the hypothesis that is distinct from the hypothesis itself... Numerically, there were marginally more editors (1) that appeared to support calling the hypothesis a "minority, but scientific viewpoint" rather than a "conspiracy theory", by my count. Consensus, however, is not the result of a vote, but is instead ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The arguments made, in light of Wikipedia policy, appear to be of fairly even quality... And, especially as this is a rapidly developing topic, it is salient to remember that consensus can change and that editors should not hesitate to create new discussions in response to the publication of substantial new information that is relevant to the topic of this RfC.

Please read it again and reconsider my proposal to simplify the consensus to "not label lab leak hypothesis as a minority but scientific viewpoint", which is easier to enforce than "no consensus on no label", because it put the onus on the minority position to earn its way to being labeled scientific. I admit that by the last phrase of the quoted closure, this RFC may be outdated. Forich (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Sorry, missed this reply at the time. While I agree in principle that debunking doesn't equate to greater weight, I'm not sure that's exactly what happened here. I'm saying the context of the RfC at the time no longer exists (there were no reliable scholarly sources treating it as a viable scientific hypothesis until the WHO report), and we're already obviously not abiding by it (this page and Investigations have mostly settled into there being a minority scientific viewpoint which is discussed there, and a number of conspiracy theories being discussed here). I would agree with a narrow definition that the RfC leaves it inconclusive what we refer to with the term "lab leak", I merely disagree that we're still treating the topic the same way we did when the RfC completed. So either we consider it mostly OBE, or we need to remove a lot of wikivoice from a lot of pages. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I find it very very strange that Wuhan lab leak theory is presented as "misinformation". To rule something out as "misinformation", we have to be sure about what truth is. Otherwise it's called POV pushing. Both the actual origin of the virus and, not less important, how exactly it was transmitted to humans is unknown. So the current approach in Wikipedia and current "consensus" seems like a violent partisan POV pushing - in times when intelligence community and policymakers view lab leak as one of possible ways of virus transmission to human, and lab GoF research as one of its possible origin. A man without a country (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@A man without a country: a couple of things to note here. Firstly, the tone of reliable sources has softened over recent months regarding the lab leak theory, previously there was a case to be made that a weight of sources supported calling it a conspiracy theory, which no longer appears to be the case. Secondly, this article doesn't say the lab leak theory itself is "misinformation"; the section here is on misinformation about the lab leak theory. The article on the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis was recently restored and covers the topic fully. I added an {{about}} template to the relevant section here and {{for}} to the lab leak theory article to help distinguish the two and make their separate topics clearer, although this was a bold change and another editor may disagree with me. Jr8825 • Talk 14:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

How much weight to give one ivermectin study?

The review on ivermectin by Kory et al. that was provisionally published in Frontiers in Pharmacology before removal is apparently the same that was subsequently published in The American Journal of Therapeutics (per The Scientist). I'm not here to defend the merits of either paper, nor do I know what if anything has changed between manuscripts, but I wonder now how much emphasis Wikipedia should give to this particular study. It's an incomplete (and thus misleading) picture to only mention it was removed by one journal, but not mention its acceptance by another. Has there been subsequent criticism? Does it still even qualify as "misinformation"? Are we going to pit the editorial decisions of Frontiers against the AJT's? Does it warrant meticulous exposition and singling out, or could it perhaps be mentioned in passing as one of several studies that have low support and/or been widely/prematurely misused? The Ivermectin section is already one of the most verbose of this article, and some condensation is likely warranted. And please, pre-emptively, do not mistake my good faith attempt to discuss this issue, in the goal of ultimately making a better encyclopedia article, with defense or promotion of any organization, person, or medication. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the best course of action would be a passing mention with the other sources of misinformation about ivermectin. Maybe something like "One source of confusion about the topic has been the retraction and later acceptance of a paper by Pierre Kory and others, which has been described as X, Y, Z." There's plenty in there about ivermectin, we don't need to single out this paper other than one or two sentences. I think that is the amount that is due, given the news coverage of the events around the paper. [6] [7] [8] etc.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement about widespread misinformation fails verification

I refer to this edit: [9].

I had previously flagged the sentence and reference in question in accordance with Template:Failed verification, @RandomCanadian, has simply reverted my edit to remove the tag (without any discussion nor notification, I might add), yet the issue remains that the sentence "Misinformation and confusion about the weight of evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread." does not have a WP:MEDRS let alone a WP:RS.

My suggestion is to delete this sentence entirely unless a WP:RS is found, the current reference is not reliable and independent failed verification. Aeonx (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The current reference is reliable and independent (a review in a reliable journal); and I'm again surprised by the persistent calls to delete this. There's no reason to delete this if changing one or two words which basically don't alter the meaning is all that's needed. "Unfounded online speculations" (compare with the source "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory.") seems like a decent compromise; and, well; IMHO, "unfounded online speculations" are pretty much misinformation ("false or inaccurate information") and that seemed like appropriate appropriate summary of the source (he talks about this elsewhere). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The article is a single-author, non-peer reviewed (epub before print), opinion piece by M. Hakim. The eJournal itself, Reviews in medical virology, has a reported impact factor of: 6.989; which on the low end of reliability for MED purposes. It not at all clear that the Journal and author are independent either; no statement of COI made. But the real issue is even if those issues are overlooked, there is no evidence in the reference itself. THe only reference to how "widespread" misinformation is, is a single sentence which is completely unjustified by the author. It's not justified by terms of any measure, quantitative or qualitative. I'm applying Hitchen's Razor here. We absolutely do have a responsibility to review sources, the comment that Wikipedia does not peer review journal articles just resigns Wikipedia to willingly accept sub-par sources simply because they are related to journals - this is not the case, we use impact factor as one (of many) measures to assess journal quality, let alone reference quality. Aeonx (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I could just stop you right there and say no. I'm going to give you a short explanation instead. "epub before print" means "published online [by the journal] before being published on paper". It has been peer-reviewed. See [10]. As for the journal, it's in the top 25% in its field, 6.99 is certainly not a "low-end" impact factor (less than 5% of journals have an IF of 6 or higher, [11]); it's MEDLINE-indexed ([12]); it's published by a non-bullshit publisher (Wiley). As for the paper being a secondary review paper, that's obvious both from the fact it is identified by such in all databases, and from the content of the article itself (it's citing existing research and summarising it; there's no new analysis of data). And, on top of all of that, it's not making any particularly extraordinary claims: it's entirely in line with what other similar papers have been saying about the subject, so you arguing that we should be peer-revieweing it is entirely unconvincing. TLDR; your assessment is wrong. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"it's entirely in line with what other similar papers have been saying about the subject," ... then why not add these as referenced sources in the article? Aeonx (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Before I saw the above reply, I had a quick look at the cited source and found the sentence "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory." which is similar to the sentence you are discussing. I have no idea whether or not the Review of Medical Virology is a reliable source. Perhaps you should have used Template:Unreliable source? JonH (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes @JonH, that is precisely the ONLY sentence in the referenced citation. I identified this sentence too when verifying the source. However when you dig deeper, you will see there is no evidence in the article to justify the statement "massive online speculations"; and it's quite difference from the POV-pushed statement which RandomCanadian has now inserted: "Unfounded online speculation about [Accidental release of collected sample] has been widespread". As far as I can tell, neither the reference, nor the cited sources in the reference make a reliable statement about misinformation specifically relating to accidental release of a collected sample. Aeonx (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Firm disagree. I think this is a very verifiable statement, including to the original source. Here are some more WP:RSes which describe this phenomenon:

Secondary reviews in the scientific literature

Hakim (the original source): [13] Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory...The most dangerous effect of this widely disseminated misinformation is it will negatively influence the attitudes and behaviours for preventive measures to contain the outbreak...It is not surprising that one potential contributing factor to the current outbreak is misunderstanding among the general population of the facts and dissemination of conspiracy theories. Frutos et al.: [14] This leads to a key feature of COVID-19: it is the very first pandemic to occur in our hyper connected society. A rush for scientific publications occurred with 111,726 Pubmed references for “COVID-19” as per March 11, 2021. A parallel ‘digital pandemic’ (overcommunication on more or less probable ‘scientific hypothesis’) developed on social networks, bringing opinions and conspiracy theories, generating anxiety and irrational behavior. However, two major issues remain unresolved: i) the origin of the virus and ii) the initial route of infection leading to the pandemic.

Journalistic sources

This article from Snopes: [15] Claims that SARS-CoV-2’s genome provide “smoking gun evidence” of human intervention rely on discredited arguments and quotes from notable scientific figures who have since walked those claims back...Lab leak advocates describe zoonotic spillover — the process by which an animal virus naturally becomes capable of infecting a human — in ways that falsely minimize its likelihood...The final class of arguments, therefore, relies on a narrow view of both COVID-19 pathogenesis and zoonotic spillover to cast the natural origin hypothesis as more unlikely than reality dictates...Other arguments against a natural origin imply that it is somehow rare for anyone besides a virology researcher to come into contact with bats or to enter a cave or mine that houses them. “Who else besides miners excavating bat guano comes into particularly close contact with bat coronaviruses?” Wade argued. “Coronavirus researchers do.” This is an absurd argument. First, one does not need to enter a bat colony to come into contact with a bat. Second, bat guano is commonly harvested in southern China for its use as a fertilizer. This article from Slate: [16] With the origins of the coronavirus still up in the air, there’s been a lot of talk of the so-called lab leak theory—the idea that the virus spread to people in a laboratory accident, rather than jumping from a wild animal to a human. In recent days, there’s been a flurry of speculation, and it can be hard to parse what the lab leak theory is all about, how likely it is, and why it matters at all. This other article from Slate: [17] But we’re not talking about the lab leak theory now because there’s direct evidence for it, or even much evidence for it at all. We are talking about it because there is an ongoing scientific inquiry into how the pandemic started, and because a number of journalists are following those lines of inquiry or see talking about it as a corrective to past bias. Simply: There is a very small possibility that the virus came from a lab, a possibility some scientists (and now many other people) are interested in exploring further. A recent New York Times headline might sum it up best: “Scientists Don’t Want to Ignore the ‘Lab Leak’ Theory, Despite No New Evidence.” Or, as Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, said Friday: “Over the last number of days, we have seen more and more discourse in the media, with terribly little actual little news, or evidence, or new material, and this is disturbing.” This article from the APA Monitor: [18] Misinformation on COVID-19 is so pervasive that even some patients dying from the disease still say it’s a hoax. In March 2020, nearly 30% of U.S. adults believed the Chinese government created the coronavirus as a bioweapon (Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 263, 2020) and in June, a quarter believed the outbreak was intentionally planned by people in power (Pew Research Center, 2020). Such falsehoods, which research shows have influenced attitudes and behaviors around protective measures such as mask-wearing, are an ongoing hurdle as countries around the world struggle to get the virus under control. This article from the Associated Press: [19] A nine-month Associated Press investigation of state-sponsored disinformation conducted in collaboration with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, shows how a rumor that the U.S. created the virus that causes COVID-19 was weaponized by the Chinese government, spreading from the dark corners of the Internet to millions across the globe. The analysis was based on a review of millions of social media postings and articles on Twitter, Facebook, VK, Weibo, WeChat, YouTube, Telegram and other platforms...By March, just three months after COVID-19 appeared in central China, belief that the virus had been created in a lab and possibly weaponized was widespread, multiple surveys showed. The Pew Research Center found, for example, that one in three Americans believed the new coronavirus had been created in a lab; one in four thought it had been engineered intentionally. In Iran, top leaders cited the bioweapon conspiracy to justify their refusal of foreign medical aid. Anti-lockdown and anti-mask groups around the world called COVID-19 a hoax and a weapon, complicating public health efforts to slow the spread. This poll from Politico: [20] Most Americans now believe that the coronavirus leaked from a laboratory in China, according to a new POLITICO-Harvard poll that found a dramatic shift in public perception of Covid-19’s origins over the last year. U.S. adults were almost twice as likely to say the virus was the result of a lab leak in China than human contact with an infected animal, which many scientists believe is the most likely scenario.

Primary research articles

This study from Cornell researchers on the "infodemic" (not peer-reviewed but cited by news agencies): [21] [22] The COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded alongside what the World Health Organization has termed an “infodemic” of misinformation. This study identifies and analyzes the most prominent topics of COVID-related misinformation that emerged in traditional media between January 1 and May 26, 2020 based on a total sample of over 38 million articles published in English-language media around the world...Early conspiracy theories surrounding COVID-19 focused on the claim that the coronavirus was initially caught by humans consuming bats in Wuhan, China. These ideas were spread by a mislabeled viral video showing human consumption of bats in Micronesia, which actually dated from 2016...While the misinformation portion comprised only 2.9% of the whole COVID-19 conversation, the 1.1 million articles identified as covering, factchecking, or repeating misinformation represent a large volume of information that is likely to have significantly affected public perceptions of the pandemic. This study from Reyes et al. published in PLoS One: [23] Moreover, a scientific theory published in a pre-printed repository vis-à-vis the origin of COVID-19 [16] found shared amino acids with those of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV-1) in the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2. The validity of such findings was immediately questioned and dismissed by several researchers, which subsequently led to a formal retraction by the authors and a withdrawal of the paper from the repository [17]. However, despite the withdrawal of the article and the reassurance made by other scientists who verified the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 and the natural origin of the virus [18,19] these findings spread in the news and social media around the world, generating more controversy and reinforcing existing unofficial and popularly disseminated theories that established that the virus “leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan” and is probably a product of genetic manipulation to discover a vaccine for HIV-1.

Opinion pieces written by scientists

Srinivasapuram Krishnaswamy, writing in The Hindu: [24] Obversely, the ensuing infodemic has brought with it a tide of misinformation, chiefly the manufactured controversies on whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus evolved naturally or was deliberately or artificially created by Chinese scientists who then caused its spread intentionally or otherwise....In an article in Forbes magazine, Ethan Siegel lists out the strident remarks that have been made about the virus, which cannot, in the language of the scientific method, even be termed hypotheses: 1. It was a bioweapon developed in Wuhan. 2. Dr Fauci was directly involved in funding the programme in the laboratory that created the virus 3. Dr Shi Zhengli, the “bat woman”, was the brains behind the research to unleash the virus 4. Some kind of banned/unregulated research in gain of function was being done to modify a coronavirus, which resulted in the virus that causes COVID-19. All these are extraordinarily improbable compared with the hypothesis that the disease has zoonotic origins. Polly Hayes, writing in The Conversation: [25] One of the conspiracy theories that have plagued attempts to keep people informed during the pandemic is the idea that the coronavirus was created in a laboratory. But the vast majority of scientists who have studied the virus agree that it evolved naturally and crossed into humans from an animal species, most likely a bat. Peter Knight, writing in The Conversation: [26] But now the suggestion that the virus leaked from a lab is back on the agenda, with some wondering if the media failed to take the possibility seriously. In addition, Trump and his supporters have been quick to argue that they were right all along and shouldn’t have been dismissed. How is it that a hypothesis long rejected as a conspiracy theory has come back around for consideration?...As part of our research, my colleagues and I have tracked the spread of pandemic conspiracy theories online over the past 18 months. The theory that the virus was created in a lab was one of the earliest and most popular to emerge...So why is the theory again back in the limelight? There’s not much in the way of new revelations, but there are two potentially significant developments...This is what we find repeatedly in the world of conspiracy theories: that reality is often as murky as fiction.

Based on these sources, it is fair to conclude that misunderstanding/misinformation about the zoonotic origins and its likelihood are widespread, given that scholars/scientists set the tone for what is "true" in Wikipedia's eyes, but the public perception has been swayed towards the likelihood of a lab leak. This is a fair summary of these sources.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you joking? Hakim's article is not a secondary study, it's a single source opinion piece which references news articles to justify itself; and that's the article in question. These other sources are not cited, so I haven't reviewed them. Regarding Frutos', I'd like to know what it says regarding widespread misinformation is SPECIFICALLY to the accidental lab leak theory; what you have posted there is not specific, and it is not reliable justification to the statement made. It's wholly insufficient. If you think there is an appropriate source, can you specifically identify where it refers to specifically, the widespread nature of accidental lab leak theory misinformation. Aeonx (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Aeonx, it is not our place to peer review publications. Hakim's article is listed as a "Review" at the journal. It was also peer reviewed. You can tell because it has revision dates. Re: Frutos, several of the quotes I included are directly adjacent to discussions of the lab leak specifically. I would urge you to find them in the text and read the context. Thanks.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, the point remains that the cited reference doesn't provide verification to the stated claim in wikipedia. Even if we do accept it as a WP:RS, it still states something with a ENTIRELY different meaning. I question for example, what does "widespread" even mean? In this context? it's a MOS:WEASEL word at best. The Wikipedia version of what the source actually states (which you don't need to repeat to me, I was the one who originally posted it in full in the failed verification tag a week ago), is a VERY liberal interpretation with a lot of added context which is not cited in the article. If there are other sources which validate the statement that you are aware of then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Aeonx (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Aeonx, as are you, given you just linked it. You've been provided a plethora of sources to support the statement. If you think the one in the article doesn't suffice, then add any of the dozens of other sources to bolster its citations. If you had spent even half the time you spent complaining about it here researching it to find a better citation, then the article would've already been improved, electrons saved on this discussion, and everyone would be happy. Yet instead you're trying to get a sentence removed still even though you have been shown that it is verifiable. It's not a "VERY liberal interpretation with a lot of added context". It's the mainstream consensus among scientists. Note that a statement about misinformation does not necessarily require MEDRS sourcing - any strong reliable source is fine - but even if it did, you've been shown that strong MEDRS sources do exist. If you aren't going to be part of the solution by adding citations you think are necessary, then you are being part of the problem. I will note that you were warned of the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions a month ago. Your userpage containing a virtual "hit list" of editors, as well as the fact that you were previously given a temporary block for being disruptive in another contentious topic area, makes it very hard to believe you are here to improve the article. I strongly encourage you to review the way you are talking to others here and consider whether you yourself are repeating the behavior that led to your prior block. You've been proven incorrect here, and you're still fighting to remove accurate, verifiable information - thus it is in fact you who is engaging in POV pushing at this point - so please either improve the citations if you think they are necessary, or accept that you were wrong and that consensus is against you, and move on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I accept I don't have consensus to edit the article and thus I have not. As for quoting WP:SOFIXIT back at me, I tried that already... by changing the wording to reflect the source, my edit was reverted. The only POV I'm pushing is for better sources and statements that accurately reflect what the article states. I don't have any personal point of view on the topic other than to accept there is still no consensus (perhaps that counts as a POV?). Aeonx (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Aeonx, there is actually a clear consensus in sources that misinformation about COVID-19 has been widespread. Not just in those listed here, but in virtually every source that isn't a fringe/conspiracy-theory source. If you seriously cannot see that, then you do have a clear POV that is blinding you from accepting what is a clear consensus in reliable sources - both MEDRS and other sources such as news and non-medical scholarship. I actually think there's also a clear consensus here that if you believe that statement requires more sourcing nobody is against you adding one or two more good citations to the sentence to further cement that there is a consensus in sources that it is widespread - you've been provided with some options for sources to do so here, and there's many others that exist. If the POV you're pushing is for better sources, and you've been shown they exist, why haven't you added them yet? Why are you instead grasping at every straw you can to remove or alter the wording, when you've been shown that it does not need altering or removal? That is why I said that you are POV pushing - you obviously know how to improve it, you have been given ample tools to do so, yet you are still arguing for removal or altering of easily verifiable content. I encourage you to maybe take a few hours or a day off from this, come back, read all of the sources provided, find others if you wish, and then add the best 1-2 extra sources to that sentence - that way it pleases you who wishes for more sources, but also pleases those of us who do not wish to see verifiable information removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I can see where the confusion is now. I do not dispute that COVID-19 misinformation is widespread. I 100% agree that is true. What I dispute is that the misinformation SPECIFICALLY on the topic of accidental release of collected samples is widespread (or rather it's not in the cited source). Aeonx (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Your original claim is that "the author states there has been "massive online speculation" but provides no reference or evidence to justify such a claim". That is not an argument that it's unreliable. We do not fact check sources. We presume, unless evidence exists otherwise, that an otherwise reliable source that publishes information is publishing accurate information that can be repeated here. You also misidentify it as a "single author opinion piece" - first of all, a source with one author is not somehow immediately unreliable (although a source with multiple collaborators may be considered stronger if one is available), and second, it's not an opinion piece - it's a review. Just because it's written by one author does not mean it is an "opinion piece" - as it passed peer review as a "review article" - which while not as strong as a meta-analysis or systematic review is certainly a solid RS for use on WP. So, moving past your issues with the original source being unreliable (since that's been established), the only other issue you had is that the statement isn't in the cited source. But you specify yourself that the author found that there was "massive online speculation". That statement made it through peer review in a very reputable journal. As such, it doesn't matter what evidence you or I think the author provided, or even if we think the author interpreted the evidence incorrectly - one, or even a few, WP editors do not get to override the peer review process of a reputable journal simply because we disagree with the conclusions made. Note that many journals do not necessarily require that all evidence for every statement made in a review be included in the review article itself - this would be tedious and require them to be very lengthy. For statements that seem virtually uncontroversial (such as this one the author made), it may have been sufficient for the author to simply have some evidence in the review article, and provide the rest to the peer review committee if they requested it (which they likely would have).

Long story short, you seem to be trying to second guess a reliable source here simply because you don't think it's sufficient enough for you to personally believe it. And I'm not telling you that you have to personally believe what it says - although it's likely that if you have trouble believing a peer reviewed research article that you are letting something cloud your thinking. But on WP, when we have a very strong academic source that has passed peer review in a very reputable journal, and no sources can be found that contradict it (not just "don't mention it", but actively contradict it), then the matter is basically settled here. That's how sourcing works on WP, and the sourcing is sufficient for the statement. If you strongly believe that the review article is incorrect, then you should pursue a correction/retraction from the journal themselves - at which point the retracted/corrected information would need to be used to re-evaluate the material in the article here.

But until that point, we have a strong reliable source that states something as a fact. The editorial decision to change "massive online speculation" into "widespread" is not against any policy on Wikipedia - in fact, the word "widespread" is a synonym for "massive" when both are considered in this context, and the word "misinformation" is synonymous with "speculation" in this context as well. This seems to simply be some confusion over the choice of words - the wording chose is virtually synonymous with the source, but is more encyclopedic than repeating the source's exact words would be - not to mention it avoids an unnecessary quotation in the middle of a sentence. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to mostly agree to all of that, and note that I have moved past my previous claim which is that the source was not credible/reliable (your arguments have convinced me it is good enough for WIkipedia).

I would however point how that Hakim doesn't state the "massive online speculations" are unfounded misinformation relating to accidental release of collected samples (as the wikipedia article implies). Hakim reference to "massive online speculations" is based on the preceding paragraph stating a "[lab leak] derived from the Wuhan Laboratory infecting the laboratory workers and subsequently led [to the Wuhan outbreak]" which does align to the Wikipedia article; and Hakim goes on to state "scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory." (which Wikipedia editors have translated to "unfounded misinformation"). Hakim, then proceeds to state "it is difficult and time-consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely". it is a very liberal interpretation of speculation to state it is synonymous with misinformation. I don't agree. One may speculate entirely legitimately, that's simply an act of having a theory, it does not mean that theory is 'misinformation'. So on that point, I reject your comment that "misinformation" is synonymous with "speculation"; in this context or any other. That said, I'd still be happy to concede that point you have reputable dictionary to disagree?

Additionally on Hakim's comment that scientific evidence currently does not support a theory, doesn't mean it is misinformation; instead I would pose it simply means that the speculation evidence is predominately circumstantial (or not based in currently published science). Based on your interpretation, Gailieo saying the earth was spherical would've be "misinformation".

So my key point remains that the cited reference, as well as the other references (as far as I can tell from an initial read) do not comment SPECIFICALLY on the topic of misinformation as it relates to accidental release of collected samples.

What I concede is that the sources do state are:

[1] Misinformation (generally as it relates to COVID-19) is widespread,

[2] According to Hakim (Department of Microbiology, Universitas Gadjah Mada), there is "massive online speculation" about a "laboratory release theory" (Hakim's words), and

[3] Speculation about accidental release is not (currently) founded on (available) scientific evidence.

Aeonx (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Aeonx's user page is troubling (not only for the hit list identified by Berchanhimez), but the real issue here is that one editor not being satisfied and not attempting to compromise is not reason to hold the article hostage any further. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  I have removed my watchlist, I was not aware keeping a personal watchlist on other editors for potential POV pushing was against the rules. For that I apologise. Aeonx (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

Propose addition of "Delta variant created by COVID-19 vaccines" under "Vaccines", as noted below:

As the delta variant of COVID-19 began to spread globally, disinformation campaigns seized on the idea that COVID-19 vaccines had caused the delta variant, despite the fact that the vaccines cannot replicate the virus. A French virologist likewise falsely claimed that antibodies from vaccines had created and strengthened COVID-19 variants through a previously debunked theory of Antibody-dependent Enhancement.

A related theory, out of India, claimed that COVID-19 vaccines were lowering people's ability to withstand new variants instead of boosting immunity.

Sources

 Done. Thanks for the high quality well-sourced content!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation in the Philippines

This is a talk (if it will be included, an informal edit request) I'm making, as ― even without the fact that I don't have extended-confirmed access ― I don't know yet how I would properly put this on the article.

I am asking whether the following would be worth including in the article (I don't know whether it's too indiscriminate or not):

Basically, misinformation in the Philippines has circulated over how, supposedly, those who wouldn't be vaccinated would not receive "ayuda" (basically aid, in this case financial.) Large crowds of thousands of people rushed to some vaccination sites in Metro Manila and in Antipolo, Rizal, which was linked to the misinformation stated above.

Thanks! Caehlla2357 (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure this is really misinformation about Covid.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Sources

Fazze COVID-19 disinformation campaign

Hello, I just created a stub article for Fazze, an influencer marketing agency that was behind a multi country online COVID-19 disinformation campaign. Any help would would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Rfc on current status of lab leak theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lab leak theory on the origin of COVID-19 be treated and described as a:

• A conspiracy theory; or
• Minority, but scientific viewpoint? Forich (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Firstly, why here and not Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory?

Secondly, is there really a point to this exercise now? I mean, it would update current consensus #1 in the template but not change anything in any article, as far as I can tell. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Malformed RFC. Does not specify which lab leak theory we are discussing, does not specify the impact of the result, does not include any evidence wrt media and scholarly descriptions. Suggest retracting the RfC and waiting until it actually matters, or will resolve some dispute. I don't see any dispute that will be resolved with this.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Close as malformed this is apparently intended to change the language at Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus). Such an RFC should be on the template's talk page, and should suggest replacement wording. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 力, IDK, I think Forich wants us to actually decide which of these the theory is, so the template talk would be inappropriate for that, as it has far fewer watchers. That being said, I don't think there is any indication that a decision on this will be helpful to editing the article in any way. We need more evidence/time to have more conclusive verbiage about the overall theory.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This is an update of a previous Rfc, which resulted in "no consensus". Rationale for the update can be read here, at the opinion of some editors who said that the previous Rfc was probably outdated in light of a recent major shift in the acceptability of the lab leak theory by U.S. Media. Voters are advised to read the previous closure made by @Mikehawk10:, including the concerns of Wikipedia: FALSEBALANCE raised there. It will help a lot if editors can also familiarize themselves with WP: SCICON before voting.Forich (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Malformed, Wrong venue, and the comment about the shift of the US media is not particularly relevant for determining this since we don't base our coverage of scientific topics on newspapers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  At the same time, this page is semi-protected to prevent IP disruption/socking/canvassing, so this might be a more decent venue than my first instincts suggested. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose

  It is certainly not scientific.

  It may be patently false, but unless the propenents are claiming a conspiracy to cover it up, it is not a conspiracy.

  pseudoscience? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  It is currently being evaluated by scientists following the scientific method. It is not asserted to be true as a result of ideas that do not follow the scientific method, and really isn't asserted to be true at all, so not a pseudoscience any more than heat death of the universe is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup

Consider cleanup? Many of these are minor. 26zhangi (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Infowars

The Guardian published an interesting article this week that somebody [else!] may consider worth a mention in the article? The essence is that Russia and China have been creating false stories deliberately, as a form of infowar. I don't know enough about the topic to evaluate its importance or its value to the article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Japan found magnetic contamination in Moderna vaccinea

On August 26, 2021 Japan reported finding contamination in some unused Moderna vaccines. They also stated the contamination reacted to a magnet and may be metal. This is relevant to the claims of magnetic attraction to injections sites. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

YeshuaAdoni, we cannot rely on primary sources for this, we need secondary WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to flip the scientific consensus. Because it is a medical claim.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

YeshuaAdoni, Truly I think you are connecting two disparate things. A small contamination of metal in a vaccine is a reason to recall the vaccine. But it is not reason to start believing the vaccine makes people "magnetic." as some have claimed. To claim as much would be WP:OR, on medical claims. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

We will have to wait until the results of the investigation. But if they found magnetic material inside vaccine vials, this questions if those with magnetic injection sites also had contamination in their injection. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

YeshuaAdoni, The question is whether it actually truly makes one's skin "magnetically reactive" which is a medical claim. And thus requires a higher quality of sourcing than a news report.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear if medical journals will step into physics, and confirm if magnetic material can attract a magnet. We will have to wait and see. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bells palsy risk is no longer misinformation

In August 2021, it was revealed the Sinovac vaccine carries a risk of Bell's palsy:

"A recent study conducted by investigators from the Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research at the University of Hong Kong, in collaboration with the School of Nursing, has found that there is an increased risk of Bell’s Palsy after the administration of the CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine." YeshuaAdoni (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

YeshuaAdoni, we cannot rely on primary sources for this, we need secondary WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to flip the scientific consensus. Because it is a medical claim.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It was published in a medical journal: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00451-5/fulltext YeshuaAdoni (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

From the interpretation section: "Our findings suggest an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy after CoronaVac vaccination." YeshuaAdoni (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And from the papers abstract:

"the findings from Eric Wan and colleagues' study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases showed an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy after immunisation with CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech), a vaccine that uses the inactivated virus." YeshuaAdoni (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

How to identify high quality medical sources

(edit conflict)YeshuaAdoni, Have you read WP:MEDRS? It requires high quality sources, and case control studies are WP:PRIMARY, and thus should be used sparingly, if at all. Especially not for a controversial claim like this. It remains to be seen whether the larger scientific community will accept this result as valid. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the controversy. A medical journal concludes an increased medical risk for a specific brand of vaccine. Yet, their peer reviewed findings are still "misinformation". YeshuaAdoni (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The peer reviewed paper qualifies as WP:MEDRS

"Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, __published secondary sources__ (__such as reputable medical journals__), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies." YeshuaAdoni (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between your source, and the FDA source? Look at this diagram, it may be helpful. It may be true, if at a low rate slightly above background. But it's still under investigation, and it remains to be seen whether the larger scientific community will accept this result as valid. We have a duty to not report such preliminary results as fact. We must wait to see if the scientific consensus changes at all in response. At this point, it has not.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Backing away from whether this is a reliable/MEDRS source, the page currently says: Claims have been circulated on social media that the Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine (active ingredient tozinameran) causes Bell's palsy. The cited primary study refers to CoronaVac inactivated viral particle vaccine, not the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine. So this study doesn't apply to the page as written. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I write this post in a neutral manner:

This month Canada has updated the warning label for the Pfizer vaccine and it now includes Bell's Palsy: https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2021/76203a-eng.php

The updated drug info is available at: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

And page 21 says: "Post-Market Adverse Reactions The following adverse reactions have been identified during post authorization use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Cardiac disorders: myocarditis and/or pericarditis (see WARNING AND PRECAUTIONS section) Immune System Disorders: severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, and other hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash, pruritus, urticaria, angioedema) Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue Disorders: pain in extremity (arm) Nervous System Disorders: Facial paralysis / Bell’s Palsy" YeshuaAdoni (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

YeshuaAdoni, It's a question of the sources we currently have. We have many multiple authoritative sources (FDA, CDC, FactCheck sites 1 2, MedPage, Expert Reviews/Opinions 1 2 3 4) (<-- in particular the Up-To-Date source is widely recognized as often portraying scientific consensus) and primary studies (1 2) saying this is likely not due to the vaccine, that it's occurring in the background rate and in people who were predisposed for many other reasons, and that if it is happening it's extremely rarely and occurring at a low rate known to occur in basically any vaccine.

And then we have a few case reports (1 2 3 5) in the literature and a few countries saying it is a possible adverse event of the vaccine, that it can occur, and that it is possibly caused by the vaccine. Some experts agree with that assessment: 1 2

So what do we do, when we have conflicting sources like this? We defer to the most authoritative ones and the default of no assumptions. We report that things were spreading on social media, and that the FDA and CDC have said it is likely not associated. The scientific consensus still supports this being a background phenomenon. Will that eventually change? Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell, but it isn't there yet.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What was the original social media claim? That Bell's Palsy had been reported as a possible adverse reaction (via something like VAERs and being misrepresented), or that it was a substantial risk? We have citations for the rate matching that of the background population, but not the original claim. Understanding the original claim would help to understand how we should describe it. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, I believe this is the appropriate source for the social media claim: [27] I may have accidentally removed it in adding the MEDRS. I'll check and add it to the appropriate clause.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the Canadian warning be added as information here, or should it be left out? If someone says "Canada says the Pfizer vaccine has a risk of Bell's Palsy", would that be identified as misinformation? YeshuaAdoni (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added more detail about the current state of the literature to the section.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad this misinformation was cleared up YeshuaAdoni (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Source #441 cites Quillette. This is not considered a reliable source, please remove it. TWM03 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Sure. The other sources there are more useful, anyway.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)