Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 14

Can we mention that the Vitamin C treatment protocol was used in hospitals during the C-19 pandemic? Drsruli (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-c/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32662690/

https://revitalizinginfusions.com/new-york-hospitals-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/

https://annalsofintensivecare.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13613-020-00792-3

https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04710329

https://www.nutraingredients.com/Article/2020/03/25/Hospital-turns-to-high-dose-vitamin-C-to-fight-coronavirus

https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/COVID19/IV-VitaminC-virus

https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-021-00727-z

https://www.newsweek.com/new-york-hospitals-vitamin-c-coronavirus-patients-1494407

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.638556/full

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.559811/full

https://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/research/nutrition-in-medicine/vitamin-c/

https://www.intelligentliving.co/vitamin-c-covid-19-treatment-ny-hospitals/

https://www.revitalaz.com/blog/vitamin-c-treatment-in-the-covid-19-era

https://www.accjournal.org/journal/view.php?number=1289

https://www.medpagetoday.com/casestudies/infectiousdisease/87976

https://www.consultdranderson.com/elementor-247647/

https://www.lemmo.com/new-york-listens-as-vitamin-c-intravenous-becomes-a-treatment-tool-in-covid-19/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-96703-y

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172861/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-york-hospitals-giving-patients-16-times-the-daily-recommended-dose-of-vitamin-c-to-fight-coronavirus

https://wholefoodsmagazine.com/news/reports-hospitals-in-ny-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8149191/New-York-hospitals-treating-corona-patients-6000-milligrams-VITAMIN-C.html

Drsruli (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I clicked through on three articles, none of which supported the claim. If you want to assert that research was done ... how is that misinformation-relevant? IAmNitpicking (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

To report that that the Vitamin C treatment protocol was used in hospitals during the C-19 pandemic. Drsruli (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

How's that relevant to misinformation?

talk

) 05:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Drsruli, I too clicked a couple of your links that weren't directly referencing it in the title (three now, actually), and reviewed them, and only one mentioned what you're talking about in that context. Either you're not doing your due diligence in verifying the sources (I'm assuming you didn't read all of these), or you're deliberately misrepresenting sources, and hoping that we won't check (which I doubt). Either way, do better. I'm also not sure how this is related to misinformation, as IAmNitpicking points out. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

What about the ones that directly reference it in the title? Drsruli (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, how is that relevant to misinformation? Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Because there is a Vitamin C treatment section. Drsruli (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

But does any of this contradict the claim we make? Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Does it have to? (Wikipedia "makes a claim"? I think that it's about recording history.) Drsruli (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does, as if this does not add anything to the claims we make (or dispute it) it adds nothing to our understanding of the subject. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Not different from numerous other entries on the same page, stating that something was wrong, and giving an instance of it. This is considerable context for the category. Drsruli (talk)

They do not say something is wrong, they say something is done. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

All the more so. This is something that was done. Drsruli (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

What? So? this tells us nothing about Covid misinformation, it does not address it. Drop this now, you do not have wp:consensus. I am bowing out now as this is just going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I asked "Can we mention that the Vitamin C treatment protocol was used in hospitals during the C-19 pandemic?" You requested sources. Here are some sources. Drsruli (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, in this article we can't just mention that vitamin C was used in hospitals, because that is not misinformation, as repeatedly explained above this. IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

All right. I guess that that was my question. Since we have a statement about Vitamin C, is that enough to mention (reported) examples of use. (Sources provided.) It seems that other entries employ similar structure. (In light of the statement in the category, hospital use of the treatment could be notable.) Drsruli (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hospitals tried a lot of dumb things, especially in the early stages of the pandemic, and Vitamin C has been pushed by quacks. But we'd need sources putting this together for it to be includable here.

talk

) 05:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is definitely too long to read comfortably (300+ KB). The readable prose size is > 100 KB, so it should be divided as per [[12]]. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Some articles will always be longer than the 100 KB limit. It should not be divided, though it could probably be condensed some. Not down to 100, but some. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Prior discussions from last November and this January. I agree that trimming is preferable to splitting. I reiterate my now mostly-serious proposal that §Prevention be condensed down into something like: "False claims have spread suggesting that COVID-19 can be prevented by drinking alcohol, drinking hot drinks, eating vegetarian, practicing specific religions, smoking tobacco, snorting cocaine, mass disinfection using helicopters, clapping, eating cabbage, or eating the poisonous Datura fruit." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

If the article is claiming that Hannity called the virus a hoax would it not make sense to link to him saying it and not an edited version of his words? 42.125.117.185 (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We here on wikipedia prefer secondary sources. See

WP:RS.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 10:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Ran across a conspiracy theory the other day that microscopic black fibers in Chinese masks are actually some kind of bio-weapon called a morgellon that infects you with something. Might be enough RS to add this to the article. Reuters. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder how far that social media post spread. If notable, it might be worth adding to the Morgellons article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's me, but I don't actually see any mention of misinformation in this section. There's mention of speculation about sexual transmission, but nobody actually seems to have asserted it as fact. Even if you accept that one sentence, the rest of the section appears out of place. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Its still misinformation. In fact, it's worse, as it is "only asking questions" style. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 denial and/or minimization should have its own article. This one's too long already. Did there used to be a page for COVID-19 Denial that was folded into this page? WikiUserBC (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

From page history, it has basically always been a redirect. While I can see the appeal and page length has been a concern for a while, I suspect snapping a clean line between 'regular' misinformation and denialism might prove difficult. Did you have a recommendation? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, it would be hard to draw a line. I was thinking about pulling out themes around understating the risk, such as "its just like flu", "its only a problem for the elderly", "so much more harm is done by wearing masks", etc. I've seen the term 'COVID denial' used for that type of messaging. WikiUserBC (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably a first step would be to tighten up this article (there's a lot of excess wordage). Then see what we've got? Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess I will see if I can condense those themes in this article WikiUserBC (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I suspect there's a lot that, with the benefit of hindsight, can be trimmed to really capture the broader strokes, rather than documenting every wild idea passed around one location for a week or two. For instance, could our sections on Mustard oil and Spiritual healing be removed as being too narrow, since each only deals with one individual (Ramdev and Kenneth Copeland respectively) with the topics covered on their respective pages? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the narrative portions of those sections and others could be removed for being too narrow, if they are listed elsewhere and could be referenced. Then the headers could all be in a list with those references. 192.160.51.86 (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Source 227, New Bloom Magazine, as a source, is questionable and should be eliminated, and the section "Alleged leak of death toll by Tencent" requires citation and corrections. We must not allow internet feuds and AI-generated authors to impact Wiki. This concerning issue was brought to my attention via Reddit discussions and Tweets. I have no connection to New Bloom or Taiwan News, simply a dislike for Wiki being used for internet feuds. Brian Hioe has a well-publicized feud with Taiwan News, which he rants about on social media near daily.

Co-author Lars Wooster's medical credentials is the basis for the article's authority. But Lars Wooster is an AI-generated character. The profile image is clearly generated by AI, and the name itself is a terrible blend of Scandinavian first names and British surnames with no internet presence other than on Brian's blog.

This subject was discussed on the Taiwan News page's talk page, where it was pointed out that it is not deserving of controversies and so removed. It was identical to the "Alleged leak of death toll by Tencent" but later removed for not passing muster.

Furthermore, New Bloom's piece does not dispute that China may have been untruthful about their figures, only that they found it doubtful that Tencent ever possessed the true numbers, which is overly critical. The Taiwan News piece does not even say that Tencent leaked the genuine figures; instead, it focuses on the dubiousness of China's reporting on COVID numbers, which was a global topic in February 2020, and points out that Tencent had a gaffe. Bloomberg and many other prominent papers reported on it as well. Taiwan News was not the first to notice the gaffe either, therefore the omission of Bloomberg and the Washington Post shows prejudice.

The same dubious New Bloom story is mentioned again in the second section, "Mass cremation in Wuhan." Based on a screenshot from Windy.com, the other source, Full Fact, mentions The Sun, Metro, Daily Express, Daily Mail, and many others as reporting on the cremation story but Taiwan News is never mentioned in the piece. Furthermore, printing information that is later disproven is not a mortal sin and if it was, then this section should include all the papers that ever reported on the story. Except for the aforementioned New Bloom Magazine, I am not clear why Taiwan News gets singled out or is even mentioned there.

Until there is a better report on the subject, the part "Alleged leak of death toll by Tencent" should be removed, as it has been done elsewhere, and "Mass cremation in Wuhan should not mention Taiwan News" as there's zero credible sources linking Taiwan News. Furthermore, the dubious New Bloom article as a source should be removed because AI produced authors on blogs are not credible sources. AnalogBiped (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The two papers here, among others, should be added in the refs:

"Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics", https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4

Blaylock RL. "COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?" Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/ 37.101.144.152 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This source should be considered [though at a preprint stage], "Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2", https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.18.512756v1 37.101.144.152 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Junk source. Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Also one source can't be "consensus". Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The pre-print has been giving everyone a good laugh.[13] Yet another vindication of Wikipedia's sourcing policies, that it's kept out. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It is neither a junk source, since many or most of the good articles are prepublished on preprint servers like this, so you cannot for sure put your "junk" label os such a preprint server at all. Nor it is consensus, on the contrary it is one of the proof that consensus is not reached yet, if ever will, and as such is here just to point to what you consider consensus in the voice it may be not. So a more comprehensive approach would be appreciated. 37.101.144.152 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Go and dig in its metric page to see if the 74 media/blogs or the over 8k twitter comments are all laughing at it as you suppose on the basis of one, single, link at vox. That, by the way, writes: "The ultimate origins of Covid are one of the biggest open questions in science, and if clear evidence emerged that a pandemic that has killed millions began with the work of researchers in a lab, the ramifications for science would be unimaginable." Even your link says it is an open quesiton, while in the voice in wp it is given for granted the consensus is on natural origin. Well, I think you should first make clear to yourself what (selected) part you pick up from the (selected) RS you provide. 37.101.144.152 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

We do not care how many blogs or Twitter users liked it. Absolutely irrelevant to our inclusion criteria. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Preprints are not reliable. See

WP:PREPRINT. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 02:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Fails PREPRINT, fails SECONDARY, and authors do not seem to be recognized specialists in any relevant fields. JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Something here Vaccine_hesitancy#Blood_transfusion may fit in this article too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

First time reader of this page. It seems that the page does not explain the fact that the scientific consensus has evolved since the beginning of the pandemic. The evolution seems to be described separately for each topic (I checked for the use of masks, I guess there is one for what the vaccines were expected to do, etc.). But the general phenomenon, which is important, is not identified in the introduction, and it's regrettable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.254.61.46 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Has it? please provide some RS that says what we say is no longer the scientific consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Not really a topic for this article, which is specifically about misinformation. Misinformation is misinformation, whether or not it's a "stopped clock right twice a day". Bakkster Man (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

My comment about virus denialism got removed (don't know how to contact the editor). If virus denialism can't be listed under Covid-19 Misinformation, what can? Please don't misunderstand me: I am not advocating but extensively debunking virus denialists. Please give a valid reason for deletion other than "LOL". The lemma on Germ Theory Denialism doesn't even mention Covid, so should be updated as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism FrankVisser101 (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi FrankVisser101. Doktorbuk removed the comment. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning virus denialism, but we need a stronger source than your publication. In your research, did you come across journal articles, reliably published books, or news articles that discuss the topic? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, David Gorski quoted my work twice on his Respectfulinsolence skeptic blog (on Kaufman's and Mercola's germ theory denialism), but regular news media just mention if David Icke is banned from YouTube. No scientist takes them seriously. But they have an impact in the counter culture among the more radical antivaxx factions which should not be overlooked. Again, Dan Wilson (Debunk the Funk on YouTube) does a fair job of debunking one of their heroes Stefan Lanka. That's it. Actually: for my book I extensively used Wikipedia! David Quammen, who recently published "Breathless" about the pandemic, supported my work: "Sorting through the confusion - Frank Visser has patiently compiled this book on the #COVID19 conspiracy theories and the realities behind them. Very useful in this time when wild, unsupported ideas are flying everywhichway. He brings light and sanity to the miasmal confusion of suspicions and misinformation. We all have questions about COVID-19, much is still unknown, but let's answer those questions with empirical data and peer-reviewed research. (Amazon review, David Quammen, November 23, 2020). He is the foremost popular science writer on zoonoses. It just hasn't reached the mainstream media (yet). FrankVisser101 (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for being brisk and brusque, only at first glance your comment seemed to be rather extreme and pushing an agenda. I patrol talk pages quite often and I thought you were publishing something inappropriate. Happy to help if you're suggesting constructive edits. doktorb _words^deeds 16:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, as I mentioned above, there are barely any mainstream media sources about virus denialism. Skeptic bloggers are the best you can hope for. See for example: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/psychiatrist-who-calmly-denies-reality I realize that calling a book THE CORONA CONSPIRACY might give the impression I believe this stuff - far from it. The subtitle tells it: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus. I might be the only researcher who has exensively investigated this topic. So how to present this without self-promotion? Anyways, Wikipedia should cover this somehow. FrankVisser101 (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

SUGGESTED ADDITION:

Virus denialism

Some conspiracy theorists or alternative health practitioners have gone so far to deny the very existence of viruses.[1] Examples are David Icke, Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan, Stefan Lanka, Stefano Scoglio and Sam Bailey.[2] Critical engagement has come from several skeptical bloggers[3][4] or fact check websites[5][6], but not yet in mainstream media, though these ideas have a large audience on social media.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism

[2] For a critical discussion see: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus, www.integralworld.net

[3] Jonathan Jerry, "The Psychiatrist Who Calmly Denies Reality", https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/psychiatrist-who-calmly-denies-reality

[4] David Gorski, "Germ theory denial in the age of the COVID-19 pandemic", https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/germ-theory-denial-in-the-age-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/

[5] Reuters, "Fact Check-SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and its complete genome has been sequenced", https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-rna-idUSL1N2LS27P

[6] FullFact, "The Covid-19 virus has been isolated many times", https://fullfact.org/health/Covid-isolated-virus/ FrankVisser101 (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

First off, we cannot use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. That's right out.

We also can't just blanket suggest a website as a source. You need a specific article from a

reliable source

, not a general "look at this website."

As a blog, we can't use Source 3 for anything besides "this is what Jonathan Jerry believes." Blogs are not considered Reliable Sources for anything but the author's opinion, so it wouldn't fit into this article.

Source 4 has potential for use here, I'll let others discuss it. It's a general publication article though, not scientific research paper, so given the rules in

WP:MEDRS

it may not be appropriate for this article. I haven't woken up enough to digest it & determine if it's focused enough to be appropriate here.

5 & 6 are factual statements, but we can't draw conclusions on our own in Wikipedia articles. We could use them as statements that the virus is real, but that's about it.

I get that this news might be frustrating, but Wikipedia has fairly strict rules for what gets put into articles about medical topics, in order to avoid giving inappropriate medical advice. So we are very cautious about what gets cited, especially in such a contentious area as COVID-19. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, but am a bit at a loss on how this gets off the radar of Wikipedia with these strict guidelines.

Note 1 was meant as cross-link. Note 2 is a self-published book endorsed by David Quammen, who is a well known science writer about spillovers. Jonathan Jarry is not just another blogger, but a well-known science communicator specifically addressing medical misinformation. David Gorksi at least makes clear in general that even in times of this pandemic germ theory denial is still a thing. He too endorsed my research.

Please advise how to proceed. I know of no mainstream media source covering this countercultural phenomenon, even though, for example, David Icke's videos on Covid have reached millions: https://counterhate.com/research/deplatform-icke/ FrankVisser101 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess the question is, why is it important to have in this article, when we already have an article on germ theory denialism in general? No more than a brief statement here pointing to that article is really needed, as it's not a central feature of COVID misinformation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is even a separate HIV/AIDS denialism Wiki page. For SARS-CoV-2 denialism that isn't needed, but I would appreciate a list item on this COVID-Misinformation page linking to: Germ theory denialism [y] and at least Gorski's blog "Germ theory denial in the age of the COVID-19 pandemic".[x]

Suggestion:

VIRUS DENIALISM

Some conspiracy theorists or alternative health practitioners go even so far as to deny the very existence of SARS-CoV-2.[x] This has occurred in every recent viral pandemic and is usually known as germ theory denialism.[y] FrankVisser101 (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS denialism has been a huge factor in that disease's history, that's why it gets a unique page.

As for your suggested wording,

WP:WEASEL

applies to the "Some people believe..." phrase. And I'd be shocked if there's a source we can cite which backs up that "every recent viral pandemic" has had a significant germ-theory denialist problem.

And that's my problem with this proposal: germ theory denialists exist, yes. They tend to pop up any time there's a major disease in the news. But I haven't seen them be a significant problem with COVID. Most of the denalism comes in the form of "it's no worse than the flu!" and stupid suggestions for how to cure it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You would be surprised that there are at least 15 things about SARS-CoV-2 that have or can been denied, not only its severity. https://www.integralworld.net/visser207.html 1. it exists, 2. it is harmful, 3. it is contagious, 4. is causes a characteristic disease, 5. it can be sequenced and tested for, 6. it has a natural origin, 7. it is not spread on purpose, 8. it is not spread accidentally, 9. it is the result of our disturbance of wildlife, 10. it comes to us from bats, 11. through an intermediate animal, 12. existing treatments don't work, 13. we must live in a temporary lockdown, 14. until a vaccine has been found, 15. and the virus will weaken down. As I said, David Quammen called these "the canonical points".

It is true that denialism has not been as massive as in the AIDS/HIV days, but many SARS-CoV-2 denialists use the same arguments, or have been involved in past denialisms. FrankVisser101 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

How is having a difference of opinion misinformation? 50.120.71.128 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ask

wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk

) 15:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"When Did Ignorance Become a Point of View" is a Dilbert volume, but it applies here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Wall St. Journal, February 26, 2023: "Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says"

I think this is notable enough and reliably sourced enough to be included in the article.

What do others here think?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really part of this article, as it has nothing to do with misinformation. We have other places for this, particularly COVID-19 lab leak theory. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Isi96, Donkey Hot-day, Veracious, Bon courage, and Cloud200:

• Skidmore, Mark (24 January 2023). "RETRACTED ARTICLE: The role of social circle COVID-19 illness and vaccination experiences in COVID-19 vaccination decisions: an online survey of the United States population". BMC Infectious Diseases. 23 (1): 51.
  doi:10.1186/s12879-023-07998-3. Retrieved 20 April 2023.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link
  )
• Hiltzik, Michael (11 April 2023). "Column: Anti-vaxxers loved to cite this study of COVID vaccine deaths. Now it's been retracted". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 20 April 2023.
• Teoh, Flora (3 February 2023). "Baseless claim that COVID-19 vaccines killed more than 200,000 comes from flawed BMC Infectious Diseases study". Health Feedback. Retrieved 20 April 2023.

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural equivalence is a type of equivalence, it focuses on comparing current government behaviour, especially policies related to COVID-19, to the tools and techniques of the Nazi regime.^[1] A rhetorical use of the Holocaust is evident – the “Nazi card” being played to delegitimize government policies. These references focused on the language and practices of Nazi government, equating them with policies said to threaten contemporary society in similar ways. Procedural equivalence also makes use of the moral force of the Holocaust but is largely oriented towards dire fantasies and predictions rather than comparison to actual events.^[2]

One such reference was to the “Yellow Star”, a badge that Nazi Germany and its collaborators throughout Europe forced Jews to wear to identify themselves (although in other forms it has featured in many other societies since medieval times).^[3] Comparisons of the Yellow Star to “health passes”, which were part of many societal responses to COVID-19, were a recurring motif on online platforms (and have also been used in demonstrations throughout the world), with many arguing that the health pass is used to exclude and marginalize the unvaccinated in the same way that the Yellow Star was used to push Jews out of society. Vaccination requirements bear no resemblance to the experience and reality of persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany or during the Holocaust and reveal a deep lack of empathy towards victims of the Holocaust, or the incapacity to conceive of Jews as victims.

Another frequent reference was to the

Was this a suggestion for adding to the article or just your personal essay? Because the wording is more argumentative than a typical Wikipedia article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

In its section about governments trying to combat misinformation by censorship, the article says: In the United States, some elected officials aided the spread of misinformation.

This certainly was the case - but was not limited to the United States unfortunately! For example in my country, Germany, elected officials from the

You are absolutely correct. If you have referenced information about other nations' government misinformation, or even better a review of worldwide incidence of such, you could add information from it to this article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought so, too, but I don't seem to have extended confirmed user status. In Germany, the government luckilly didn't spread misinformation or aid its spread, but elected officials (MdB = Member of the Bundestag) and members of state-level parliaments (Landtag) certainly did. Would references in German suffice?

talk

) 23:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

German language should be OK. Maybe cite to a link w article translated by eg Google if possible. Source only judged by if a [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:MEDRS]] if required here (not sure). Maybe start w German Wikipedia and see how it goes or do both. Good luck. JustinReilly (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Wuhan lab origin > Bio-weapon" section, add the following paragraph:

In 2021 the US department of state released a statement alleging that "The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017."

Citation: https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html WatchDogx (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a

WP:DUE and relevant to this article. With a different source, it may be appropriate for the Wuhan Institute of Virology article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 13:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

We now have sourcing in the Times of London and the Daily Telegraph supporting the bioweapon idea. Lead paragraph of the Times story[14]: Scientists in Wuhan working alongside the Chinese military were combining the world’s most deadly coronaviruses to create a new mutant virus just as the pandemic began. If one reads the story further, it softens that a bit. But the above is definitely the opinion US State Department investigators, according to the Times. In light of this, I don't think we can any longer say in WikiVoice that the bioweapon idea is a conspiracy theory. I also don't think at this point we should say in WikiVoice that said idea is true. Instead, at this point, we should report the debate, per

Agree at a minimum it’s no longer appropriate to use wikivoice here. JustinReilly (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Murdoch press is Murdoch press. And the Daily Telegraph is

talk

) 04:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose both deletion and changes to voice. Nothing has changed. The evidence points to the Huanan seafood market as the origin of COVID (which is not very close to the WIV), but regardless, claims of a bioweapon is an extraordinary claim that is way off the deep end into conspiracy theory territory, per reliable sources. See thread. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Neither support it, they report it in a way that means they do not actually come down in favour of it. Rather ascribing it to anonymous sources. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Neither of these are the level of

WP:ECREE: Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: ...Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 17:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

•Support, I agree that Wikivoice should not be used to say that bioweapon theories are true. But, by the same token, I do feel the case against them are not supported enough in either

WP:MEDRS or WP:Reliable sources

to merit use of Wikivoice to say they are untrue (eg “misinformation”, “conspiracy theories”).

Times, Sunday Times, Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph are considered to be four of only eight

Wikipedia:GREL

.

A very related, but technically separate issue is whether lab leak and GoF/genetic engineering theories should be called “conspiracy theories” or “misinformation” in Wikivoice. I think it’s very clear at this point that they should not. I think a new Talk topic should be opened re this specific issue and I intend to when I get some time. JustinReilly (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I forgot there’s an ongoing extensive discussion (of which I think most of you may be aware) of the ancillary question I brought up on the Talk page of a more specialized article: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory under the Topic “What's the source for the claim - "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis"” (May 16, 2023) JustinReilly (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

A number of better sources describe SARS bioweapon conspiracy theories as among the most outlandish, there's no valid reason to remove the current material, especially if the only argument are these sources. —PaleoNeonate – 11:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The New Bloom blog post titled "Taiwan News Publishes COVID-19 Misinformation as Epidemic Spreads" which levies allegations of “misinformation” against the Taiwan News Tencent article is disreputable because it is based on the assessment of a non-existent person. The “former biosciences graduate” cited in the article, “Lars Wooster,” has not publicly published any papers and has no web presence with the exception of the single post uploaded by the blogger Brian Hioe. In addition, the photo of Wooster https://newbloommag.net/author/lars-wooster was AI-generated.

Secondly, Hioe has a track record of harassing and openly attacking Taiwan News for the sake of drawing attention to his blog post cited in this page is a typical example of his hit pieces against the news agency. Hioe has a personal vendetta against the author of the Taiwan News articles in question and has routinely issued defamatory comments against the author on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

Thirdly, the Wikipedia entry states that the author of the original news article defended the authenticity and newsworthiness of the leak in an interview with WION, but fails to properly link to the actual WION interview and instead links for a second time to the same Hioe blog post. The following is the correct link to the WION interview: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2581906558753179.

Therefore, in order to maintain Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and objectivity when presenting information about the Covid pandemic, the attacks authored by Hioe and associated content regarding Taiwan News’ coverage of the pandemic should be removed immediately.

Furthermore, The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-families-should-be-sweeping-graves-now-but-thousands-still-havent-buried-their-dead/2020/04/03/5a6daa50-7234-11ea-ad9b-254ec99993bc_story.html and other media outlets later reported that based on the excess urns sold at crematoriums in Wuhan in early 2020, point to an estimated 40,000 deaths from COVID, consistent with the Tencent leak and mass cremation articles. The Economist in 2022 estimated that deaths from the first wave of Covid in China was as high as 1.7 million: https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2022/01/02/beijing-is-intentionally-underreporting-chinas-covid-death-rate-part-1/?sh=730dea784352. Taiwantruthseeker (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

If the purpose of the post was to provide the original source of the reports on the data leaks by Tencent, there were multiple Taiwanese media outlets that reported the incidents far earlier than Taiwan News, such as Liberty Times https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/3050613 and New Tang Dynasty Television https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/02/03/a102768360.html. The post in its current state is tainted by Hioe's biased agenda against Taiwan News. There is no reason to list Taiwan News rather than the original sources of the news in this post other than to further Hioe's agenda of denigrating the news agency for personal gain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.235.17 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure

The lead section is very detailed about specific points, but it is hard to understand why the subject is notable. It is missing facts such as dates and time frames, the impact, why it is important and who it is important to. I think it needs to provide a general summary and leave out the specifics. Lightbloom (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)