Talk:Del Bigtree

I think I understand now how Wikipedia works and would like to talk to the editors of this entry to improve it.

I would like to talk to the administrators of this group to improve the entry.

First point of note is the definition of the anti-vaccine movement and informed consent movement. There are some doctors and scientists who are truly anti-vaccination, like Dr. Susan Humphries, and there are many who think like me, that I am not your doctor who knows your medical history, so each individual should make their own cost/benefit analysis about immunity, natural or artificial.

Thus the difference between the two groups. Del Bigtree is in the Informed Consent group. I know because I have been listening to his show since 2019 when I decided to fact check him for months by looking up most of his sources he brings. He passed the test and I have enough primary sourced information from seeing Del's opinions over the years to see his thinking is toward informed consent, not just him saying he is informed consent.

Any disagreement, and please be specific with your answers. Love your neighbor613 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Incase anyone wants to understand the concept of informed consent, this Wikipedia page does a good job of explaining the basics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

The reality is complex, and I have personal real life experience with informed consent when I used to volunteer on an ambulance corps. If you have questions I will try to help explain it. Love your neighbor613 (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

First off, using your own personal experiences is WP:Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Secondly, do you have WP:Reliable Sources that state that Del Bigtree is of the Informed Consent group?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

1) How is personal experience in understand how informed consent is currently used in the medical field a problem with understand informed consent?

2) 1st Source: Www.thehighwire.com

3) I cannot see the current sources in link number 4 that you have as a reference to your claim as anti-vaccine. 4 keeps closing before I can read it.

4) Your other sources, number 5, shows Del as being:

"Informed Consent Action Network, a three-year-old charity that describes its mission as promoting drug and vaccine safety and parental choice in vaccine decisions."

That source shows Del is in the Informed Consent movement, not anti-vaccination movement. The use in source number 5 of "anti-vaccine" movement is contextually used as an opinion, not a fact. Love your neighbor613 (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

thehighwire.com is not a reliable source. Here are a few additional reliable sources that also support the claims of this article, including that Del, TheHighWire, and the "Informed Consent Action Network" are antivax:

• https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/struggling-anti-vaccination-groups-enjoyed-pandemic-windfall-rcna14402
• https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32NB2CM
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-vaxxer-fear-coronavirus-vaccine/
• https://www.factcheck.org/2022/10/scicheck-posts-distort-misleading-analysis-of-covid-19-vaccine-safety-data/
• https://www.factcheck.org/2022/11/scicheck-rsv-surge-in-children-likely-caused-by-immunity-gap-not-covid-19-vaccine/
• https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/18/texas-coronavirus-vaccines-ppp/

As you can see, these facts are not in dispute. – bradv 15:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Added three of the suggested sources in the lead as support. I'm glad we cleared that up, good talk. Enjoy your evening. Robincantin (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

First name

Is his first name really "Del", or it it a shortened form of his real first name? — The Anome (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's Matthew, which is in the infobox and many minor sources, but always with Del, and just Del (not Dylan, Delaware, Delta, Deloitte or anything else). He's better known by just "Del" rather than "Del Matthew", so at least the name of the page is correct.Robincantin (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect?

The third paragraph of this article states, "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Bigtree propagated conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus ...". It is my understanding Bigtree questioned the narrative that the virus had a natural/zoonotic origin, and questioned whether or not it may have in fact have a Wuhan lab origin. At that time, many scientists were asking those same questions and requesting further investigation.

There is evidence from 2016 and 2017 (here and here) the Wuhan Institute of Virology was in possession of and experimenting with numerous SARS coronaviruses.

In this paper, published and updated from July 2020 through to Nov 2020, scientists were questioning the origins of the virus. The conclusion of the paper suggests that the arguments supporting the natural proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 are inconclusive. It highlights that while the hypothesis of a natural origin has been widely supported by the scientific community, alternative hypotheses regarding a possible laboratory origin cannot be formally ruled out. The document emphasizes the need to reopen the question of the virus's origin and evaluate all hypotheses with the information available. It also mentions that bioinformatics analysis can provide insights into the virus's origins, but acknowledges that current understanding is incomplete and further studies are needed to resolve unanswered questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Based on this Wikipedia page, logically it must be asked, were the scientists responsible for this paper also propagating "conspiracy theories" about the origins of the virus?

It's also worth noting, Professor Luc Montagnier, the recipient of the 2008 Medicine Nobel Prize for his contribution to the discovery of HIV, is mentioned in the document. As we know, he made headlines in April 2020 by claiming that certain insertions in the SARS-CoV-2 genome could not have resulted from natural recombination or accident but were the result of man-made genetic manipulations, presumably as part of research aimed at developing HIV vaccines. Whilst his assertions were immediately challenged by numerous scientists, who argued that the similar sequences between HIV and SARS-CoV-2 are so short that their similarity is likely coincidental, this challenge does not constitute hard evidence the virus had purely zoonotic origins. It was a matter of ongoing debate.

This paper, [the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review], published Feb 4 2021, concludes, "... the arguments supporting the natural proximal origin are so far inconclusive and, albeit this hypothesis has been widely supported by the scientific community (Calisher et al. 2020), alternative hypotheses about a possible laboratory origin cannot be formally ruled out (Relman 2020). This question should thus be re-opened, and all the hypotheses should be evaluated and weighted according to the different elements of information at our disposal."

This May 14th 2021 article in Science Journal states that, "more investigation is still needed to determine the origin of the pandemic. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable."

In this May 16 2021 article on CNN, Biden tasks intelligence community to report on Covid origins in 90 days, it is stated:

Biden said in the statement that in March he directed his national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, to task the intelligence community with preparing a report on the most up-to-date analysis of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, including whether the virus emerged from human contact with an infected animal or from a laboratory accident. Biden said he received that report earlier this month and asked for additional follow-up.

“As of today, the U.S. Intelligence Community has ‘coalesced around two likely scenarios’ but has not reached a definitive conclusion on this question. Here is their current position: ‘while two elements in the IC leans toward the former scenario and one leans more toward the latter – each with low or moderate confidence – the majority of elements do not believe there is sufficient information to assess one to be more likely than the other,’” Biden said in the statement.

That’s essentially the same public determination that the intelligence community has had for more than a year about the origins of Covid-19 though Wednesday’s statement does make clear that these two scenarios are “likely” and not just being investigated. CNN reported in April 2020 that the intelligence community was investigating if the novel coronavirus spread from a Chinese laboratory rather than a market in Wuhan, China.

This is a clear record that the Biden administration was also actively and publicly questioning the true origins of the virus, and that the US intelligence community believed the evidence for either scenario (zoonotic or laboratory origins) insufficient, thus each theory had a "low or moderate confidence" rating. Again, we must ask, was President Biden and US intelligence agencies propagating conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus?

In this May 21 2021 Wall Street Journal article, Will Fauci’s Boss Answer the Questions about the Wuhan Lab?, it is reported members of the US Senate were actively questioning the origins of the virus, and specifically questioning a possible lab leak. Are those senators also to be classified as "conspiracy theorists"?

In this May 24 2021 Wall Street Journal article, The Wuhan Lab Leak Question: A Disused Chinese Mine Takes Center Stage, it is stated, "It isn’t the predominant hypothesis for Covid’s origins, yet prominent scientists are calling for a deeper probe and clearer answers from Beijing." Are those scientists also to be classified as "propagating conspiracy theories"?

This paper published in Dec 2022 clearly indicates the origins of the virus was still a matter requiring further investigation (roughly three years after Bigtree began raising his questions on the origin of the virus). As far as I can ascertain, primarily based on the content of this article and its reference to this Feb 4 2020 press release by The Highwire, which refers to this January 30 2020 episode of The Highwire. I've not gone through the episode, but the prior mentioned article indicates it featured Dr. Lyons-Weiler and Bigtree questioning the origins of the virus. I think it is safe to say this is at least roughly the time Bigtree started to publicly question the origins of the virus. As all of the above material clearly indicates, the questioning of its origins was an ongoing matter of public discourse, scientific debate and enquiry, and was the subject of an on-going US intelligence agency investigation, for at least the next 3 years after Bigtree questioned the origins of the virus.

In light of the above (which is just a cursory overview of the long-standing debate and scientific uncertainty surrounding the origins of the virus) I question both the validity of and motivation for the statement, "... Bigtree propagated conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus ...".

I believe it should be obvious this statement is factually incorrect and can justifiably be classed as biased, libellous and defamatory. No source whatsoever is provided to back the assertion Bigtree was "propagating conspiracy theories" about the origin of the virus, nor was any evidence provided to justify the classification of Bigtree's questioning of the origins as "conspiracy theories". To make such an assertion it must be agreed that all the above-mentioned scientists, the US President Biden, the US intelligence agencies, numerous US senators, etc., were also engaging in propagating conspiracy theories. Such an allegation is patently false, disingenuous and misguided.

Whether this libellous allegation is intentional or arising out of ignorance, according to the following Wikipedia policy, it needs to be corrected:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

I also note this statement, "He used The Highwire webcast to propagate a number of conspiracy theories, such as one postulating that the virus responsible had been made in a laboratory by the pharmaceutical industry." represents the same errors. First, no reference is provided (therefore it's not clearly established whether Bigtree postulated the virus was made in a laboratory, or were simply questioning whether it was; and, secondly, it is again making the assessment that questioning the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus constitutes a "conspiracy theory". For the reasons pointed out above, it is incorrect to classify such questioning as "conspiracy theories".

With all of the above in mind, I have removed the false statement pertaining to "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Bigtree propagated conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus ...", and replaced it with one that is factually accurate and without bias, and supplied suitable references. I have also made an edit to the statement, "He used The Highwire webcast to propagate a number of conspiracy theories, such as one postulating that the virus responsible had been made in a laboratory by the pharmaceutical industry."

 — InspiredLight (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is sourced. That you and a few politicians disagree with it is neither here nor there. Also, English is written from left to right and top to bottom. And read WP:SIGN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, and thanks for reminding me to sign my comments, and to put new Talk page entries below existing entries.

Your remark, "That you and a few politicians disagree with it is neither here nor there" gives me the impression you might not have read the full extent of the comments I made in the above text. I have cited numerous science journal papers (which involves a multitude of scientists who published and reviewed those papers), a number of WSJ articles, President Biden, US intelligence agencies, various US Senators, and a Medicine Nobel Prize recipient. And this was just a cursory collection of evidence from within the US (there's plenty more from US and global sources). So, I am left wondering, how have you determined that it is accurate and justifiable to refer to the lab leak theory as a "conspiracy theory"?

I would like to understand how, in your mind, the two sources that refer to Bigtree and lab leak theories substantiate the assertion in the original text better (with greater validity) than the sources I have provided to substantiate the edits I made and the comments I made above?

In the sources associated with the relevant sentence in the original text, we have two relevant sentences from two media companies: 1. "Bigtree, on his radio show The Highwire, also promoted claims that coronavirus was made in lab." (Vice Magazine); and, "The HighWire, a radio show hosted by film producer and anti-vaccine activist Del Bigtree, pushed the unsupported claim that COVID-19 created in a lab and suggested it may have had something to do with vaccine development." (CBS News)

How does this substantiate that Bigtree was propagating "conspiracy theories" about the origin of the virus? Neither of those sources even make the subjective and potentially biased claim that the lab leak theory was a "conspiracy".

Are you aware that in January of 2024 Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins (former director of the NIH who presided over Fauci up until his retirement in Dec 2021) both acknowledged in their testimony to the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic the lab leak theory was not a conspiracy theory? - "Dr. Collins agreed with Dr. Fauci’s concession that the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy" [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]

Would you please help me understand the rationale you based your comment and edit reversal on? InspiredLight (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not read all your WP:WALLOFTEXT, I just look at some links at random. So, it contained sources that are more reliable than the usual scientifically illiterate parties (WSJ articles, President Biden, US intelligence agencies, various US Senators)? Could you please refrain in future from quoting all those irrelevant people and concentrate on those who might reasonably know what they are talking about?

Luc Montagnier believed in a lot of crazy stuff, see Nobel disease. And science has principles different from those of the Catholic Church; what Nobelists say is not automatically more believable than what some random scientist says.

Those are the easiest mistakes you made; I will leave the rest to others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hob. I am struggling to follow your logic. How is an opinion piece (arguably biased and far from being written in a impartial tone) from Anna Merlan at Vice magazine in the first month or so of the pandemic (Feb 29, 2000) a more credible reference? In your estimation is Vice / Anna Merlan more scientifically literate? The CBS article at least makes greater use of impartial language, but are you going so far as to say CBS is a more credible source? To this day, there is still intense scientific debate on the matter. Here's a March 2023 paper raising that issue[[4]], and another from PNAS in May 2022.[[5]]. As for the Catholic Church, it's unclear to me what that's a reference to? And regarding Montagnier , it might pay to reread what I originally wrote about that point. It certainly wasn't to put Montagnier forward as a primary source on the matter. Rather it was simply to point out that there is ongoing scientific debate among well recognised scientists on the origins of the virus. In my estimation, you have yet to establish with any credibility that the opposite is true. InspiredLight (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I never even mentioned Anna Merlan, and I just heard her name for the first time. I don't know why you ask me about her. Do you want to remove her from the article because you doubt that Bigtree actually said what she says he said? She does not need to be scientifically literate to get that one right.

Catholic Church: It's because you tried to use Montagnier in the same way the Pope would be used: as an authority on everything they happen to talk about. He was a well-known crank, and it does not matter whether he supported something. Pro-pseudoscience editors often pick the few pro-pseudoscience Nobelists as witnesses for pseudoscience.

"Scientists on both sides" does not make a "scientific ongoing debate". That is only what laypeople think. What matters is the competent evaluation of the results of well-made studies. Scientists running their mouth about that in uncontrolled venues does not matter. That is why we have higher standards for scientific statements than for "who said what" statements. See also WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gab. Regarding "Anna Merlan" (of Vice) — You claimed that the sources I provided were of "irrelevant people", and asked me to "concentrate on those who might reasonably know what they are talking about". In my reply to this, I have asked how are the two sources linked to the sentence stating "Del Bigtree promoted conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus" somehow more relevant, and from people who more reasonably know what they are talking about.

"I don't know why you ask me about her" -— I can only assume you've not even looked into the two sources you are upholding as high quality references. It also appears you've either not read or perhaps read but not understood much of what I've shared. So I end up repeating myself.

In my experience, so far you have focused on negating and or ignoring pretty much anything I've shared, attempted to educate me on Wikipedia protocols, and been critical of what I've shared, rather than rationally addressing the points and questions I have raised. This, in my experience, is creating an unnecessary impasse.

I am making two simple requests:

1. Would you please explain to me how reference #9 and #10 (the only two of the four relevant to the sentence in question) are better quality than those I have referred to?

2. Would you please provided references validating your assertion that in March 2000 the science was totally settled (i.e. there was no relevant on-going debate within the scientific community) on the zoonotic origins of the virus. InspiredLight (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You keep dodging.

The correct response to "do not demand that we include sources from irrelevant people" is "OK. Here is a better source" and not "this other source which is in the article is not any better". It is irrelevant whether I read that other source.

The correct answer to "what you wrote is a wall of text" is "OK, I will write a shorter version omitting the irrelevant parts" and not "this is what I wrote and this is what you wrote and this is what I wrote and this is what you wrote, and I will continue ignoring the rules and demanding that you read everything in my wall of text".

I will not fetch the sticks you throw. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources listed go far beyond just the grown-in-a-lab thing, but indicate Bigtree promoted deliberate release theories. The sources also say he conspiracied about the vaccines, so I added that little bit.Robincantin (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Robincantin for your input. Please refer to my reply to Hob Gadling. InspiredLight (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)