Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 7

• Prevalence: "COVID-19–Related Infodemic and Its Impact on Public Health: A Global Social Media Analysis".
  PMC 7543839. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help
  ) Figure 3 seems to indicate the cause and origins of the virus were the most common type of misinformation of the collected reports.
• Social and political effects of origin conspiracy theories: "Framing the Origins of COVID-19".
  PMC 7484600. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help
  )

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I am still very uncomfortable with the prominence, level of detail, tone and POV positioning of the information presented in this article with respect to the lab leak hypothesis that the WHO have on the table. It's a big deal in the media and, I think, deserves more weight to be given to its coverage in Wikipedia.

Prominence

Currently it's buried in an article about misinformation, even though it is definitely a matter of fact that that this is a proposed hypothesis. It's not explained in the article why mention of its existence as a hypothesis is considered to be misinformation.

Secondly it's even buried within this article, being given a junior position at the bottom of a section covering conspiracy theories, including that the virus is not natural, involving labs. It is not a part of these theories so should, I think, at least, have its own section.

Level of detail

The one sentence that currently covers it is clearly inadequate.

Tone

Even though there is only one sentence about it, that has at least two problems. The premise suggests that this hypothesis does not assume that the virus originated in animals before spreading to humans, which is false. It hypothesises that a natural virus, present in the lab for some reason, accidentally escaped. The conclusion is an editorialised summary of a controversial interpretation of the source (see #Interview / Failed verification above) - "considered to be even more unlikely"? Even if we agreed that he said it was now more unlikely, which we don't, there is no need to peacock it up.

POV positioning

I think the preceding three points say it all.

Proposal

I propose, in the first instance that we:

1. Create a separate section for it
2. Describe the hypothesis in neutral terms
3. Describe the WHO response, including their lack of power/resources to investigate it properly
4. Describe government/political interest
5. Describe media interest
6. Describe the attitude of the scientific community towards it
7. Describe how it's been a catalyst for conspiracy theories

I'm sure there will be other stuff about it to discuss too. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No sources, again. Without sources this is pointless. So far as I can see the "lab leak hypothesis" gets accorded only a few sentences in academic publications, and is categorized as a conspiracy theory or rumour (see above). Wikipedia likes to reflect serious sources. Wikipedia will no more give weight to this fringe idea, just because it's "in the media", than it would tales of alien abductions, etc, which also get plenty of "media" coverage.

talk

) 08:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, much of this is contained in the sources that are already in the article or mentioned above. Clearly nothing should be added (or accepted) without suitable sourcing. Feel free to find some for yourself too, of course. -- DeFacto (talk

). 08:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Hakim MS (February 2021). "SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Rev Med Virol (Review).
   PMID 33586302
   .
2. Salajegheh Tazerji S, Magalhães Duarte P, Rahimi P, Shahabinejad F, Dhakal S, et al. (September 2020). "Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to animals: an updated review". J Transl Med (Review). 18 (1): 358.
   PMID 32957995.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link
   )
3. Zoumpourlis V, Goulielmaki M, Rizos E, Baliou S, Spandidos DA (October 2020). "The COVID‑19 pandemic as a scientific and social challenge in the 21st century". Mol Med Rep (Review). 22 (4): 3035–3048.
   PMID 32945405
   .
4. Barh D, Silva Andrade B, Tiwari S, Giovanetti M, Góes-Neto A, Alcantara LC, Azevedo V, Ghosh P (September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2" (pdf). Infez Med (Review). 28 (3): 302–311.
   PMID 32920565
   .
5. Hu, B, Hua, G, Peng, Z, Zheng-Li, S. "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Review Microbiology.
   doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7
   .
6. WHO official position
7. And CDC official position

In the absence of better sourcing, I suggest we are done here.

Alexbrn, readers who are interested in finding out more about this hypothesis, although with it being so buried it will be very difficult to find, will expect to find all the known facts and noteworthy opinions, not just the partial and misrepresented titbit we currently offer. Do they deserve to find it all, or should we shield them from it, as now? We are not done, and we do not need to restrict our sources solely to those emanating from the establishment medical and scientific communities. -- DeFacto (talk

). 08:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers the accepted knowledge on the topic. It's a conspiracy theory being pressed hard by inexpert believers on the Internet. There's really nothing much more to say if we're going to stay serious. If you want to relay the conspiracy theory for those who like that kind of thing, Wikipedia is not the correct venue.

talk

) 08:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, accepted knowledge? Yet we only have one sentence on this subject? My proposal is to start adding some of that accepted knowledge. If this article is the wrong place for it, then we need to create an article that is the correct place for it. Our role is not to shield readers from what we, personally, disapprove of, or even from what one section of society disapproves of. -- DeFacto (talk

). 09:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Sometimes accepted knowledge is brief, as in this case. I'm not going to respond to you further unless specific proposals are made with a source since

talk

) 09:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and suggest reading sources and presenting them for changes, otherwise this is a waste of editor time. Very surprised to see you advancing worn out arguments, DeFacto, in regards to fringe content and NPOV. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, there is nothing worn out about expecting neutral and due coverage of ideas so important that they have had acres and hours of media coverage dedicated to them. And given that the WHO consider this important enough to include it in their list of four hypotheses that need more investigation I'd say they are (for whatever reason) still taking it seriously. We need to reflect that prominence in Wikipedia. If not in this article (where it obviously does not belong) then in another. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  WP:FALSEBALANCE: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. Accepted academic scholarship which is cited in the article. Q.E.D. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

  ) 09:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  WP:DUE seems to be an appropriate place to start for guidance on this. -- DeFacto (talk

  ). 10:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, great. Now we have a Wikilawyering trick for circumventing WP:FALSEBALANCE: We can legitimize "conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories" by pointing out that the existence of those "conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories" is not a "conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theory" but a hard and incontrovertible fact. Well done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON. Thank you. TacticalTweaker (talk

) 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Read them yourself. The science has been consistent right up to the latest source (from this week) - we duly cite it in the text in this article. If further quality sources appear, they may be considered but until then we are good.

talk

) 13:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have read four (1, 5, 6, 7) of the seven sources you have provided above and I think you are misrepresenting their findings. Like many scientists have been saying since the start of this debate, only a

forensic investigation

can falsy the lab leak hypothesis, and as the Hakim paper says quite explicitly: However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation. Please get a good night's sleep and read the paper properly.

To provide some context for Hakim's point, this Washington Post article from May 1, 2020, quotes

Richard Ebright

: Richard H. Ebright, a microbiologist and biosafety expert at Rutgers University, said: “The question whether the outbreak virus entered humans through an accidental infection of a lab worker is a question of historical fact, not a question of scientific fact. The question can be answered only through a forensic investigation, not through a scientific investigation.”. Please do not misrepresent these sources to foment heated discussion on what is clearly a legitimate origin hypothesis now being investigated by the US Government and the WHO.

As reported in NBC just today, the Biden administration has criticized the Chinese government for lack of transparency around the origins of the virus. According to this report, the Biden admin also criticized WHO investigators for releasing a premature report, which was walked back by the WHO DG. This NBC report follows another report they made yesterday describing how China is withholding forensic evidence ("key data, including blood samples"), and we can add both of them (as well as the NY Times report it cites) to the growing stack of reliable sources reporting on this controversy (all of which must be read properly by Wikipedia editors and presented accurately for Wikipedia readers).

TacticalTweaker (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

And how is "China witholding evidence" (an accusation from their main geopolitical rival) evidence of anything besides this being a political controversy? Scientists saying that "further investigation is probably the only course of action" isn't evidence of anything either (except these scientists trying to assure job security, :), or, less cynically, simply them following the standards of the scientific method). Simply because something can't be disproved doesn't make it true, i.e. Russell's teapot. Unless we get evidence to support this hypothesis, we shouldn't be misinforming our readers by treating it as a prevalent one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The

WP:ONUS is on you to present convincing contradictory information properly sourced. Which, unsurprisingly, we haven't seen a trace of... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 21:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs

David A. Relman

¹⁶ – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely.

We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list.[2]

1 UCL Genetics Institute, University College London

2 Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina

3 Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division,

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

4 Public Health Sciences Division,

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

5 Architecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS

6 Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Rutgers University

7 Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley

8 Global Health & Social Medicine King's College London

9 Neurobiology and Bioengineering, Stanford University

10 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health

11 Cell Biology and Anatomy, New York Medical College

12 Integrative Biology and Statistics, University of California Berkeley

13 Director of Bio Policy & Leadership Initiatives at Stanford University

14 College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University

15 Infection and Immunity, Columbia University

16 Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine

Also in regards to a recent science review article on this topic see:

To conclude, on the basis of currently available data it is not possible to determine whether the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a zoonosis from a wild viral strain or an accidental escape of experimental strains. Answering this question is of crucial importance to establish future policies of prevention and biosafety. Indeed, a recent zoonosis would justify enforcing the sampling in natural ecosystems and/or farms and breeding facilities in order to prevent new spillover. Conversely, the perspective of a laboratory escape would call for an in-depth revision of the risk/benefit balance of some laboratory practices, as well as an enforcement of biosafety regulations. As the international team of 10 experts mandated by the WHO enters in China to investigate on SARS-CoV-2 origins (Mallapaty 2020), all the rational hypotheses should be envisaged in an open minded way.

-- Sallard, E., Halloy, J., Casane, D. et al. Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review. Environ Chem Lett (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1

Authors: Erwan Sallard1 Jose Halloy2 Didier Casane3,4 Jacques van Helden5,6 and Étienne Decroly7

1 École Normale Supérieure de Paris, 45 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France

2

CNRS

, LIED UMR 8236, 85 bd Saint-Germain, 75006 Paris, France

3 Université Paris-Saclay,

CNRS

, IRD, UMR Evolution , Génomes, Behavior and Ecology, 91198, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

4 University of Paris, UFR Sciences du Vivant, F-75013 Paris, France

5

CNRS

, French Institute of Bioinformatics, IFB-core, UMS 3601, Évry, France

6 Aix-Marseille Univ, Inserm, Theory and approaches of genome complexity (TAGC) laboratory, Marseille, France

7 AFMB, CNRS, Aix-Marseille Univ, UMR 7257, Case 925, 163 avenue de Luminy, 13288 Marseille Cedex 09, France

Also in regards to a recent biosafety review article

There are two major hypotheses to explain the origin of COVID-19. One is the "natural origin" hypothesis, the other is that it might have escaped from a laboratory, with its origin subsequently hidden. Although most scientists support the natural origin idea the other cannot yet be dismissed. Evidence for each hypothesis is presented. If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance.

-- Colin Butler. "Plagues, Pandemics, Health Security, and the War on Nature." Journal of Human Security, 16.1 (2020): 53-57. https://doi.org/10.12924/johs2020.16010053

Here is another science review on the topic:

"to fully understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2 we must adjust our operating assumptions. First and foremost, the scope of hosts must include those where serial passage has taken place or is likely to occur, even if they are not naturally occurring as is the case of knockout mice with human ACE2 receptors."

--Thomas Friend & Justin Stebbing,1 "What is the intermediate host species of SARS-CoV-2?", Future Virol. (2021).

"An editorial review of the proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2, what may have been missed and why it matters."

1

Imperial College

, London, UK

Clearly, the lab origin hypothesis is being reviewed and is on the table in science. If this obstruction continues on this page, I suggest a request for comment. The sources above are solid. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying sources, but unfortunately none of them are viable:

• The first source in The Daily Telegraph, which is not RS for SCI/MED.
• The second source is a translation of PMID 32773024, a comparative study. Environ Chem Lett. is not a MEDLINE-indexed journal, which is a warning flag and also we don't use chemistry journals for virology topics. No need to use this low-quality source when better ones are to hand (see list of seven in section above).
• The third source is from Journal of Human Security which doesn't even appear to be included in PUBMED and has an impact factor of 0.4. Not useful.
• The fourth source is from Future Virol, another non-MEDLINE-indexed journal. It doesn't appear to be in PUBMED and is an editorial. Total MEDRS fail.

Conclusion, this is textbook

talk

) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn We have read your sources. Your behaviour is problematic. Quote the location in the sources which support your claim or do not pretend to understand virology articles. Many of us have created numerous virology related articles. Explain to me source #1. I want the quotes. Some of us know virology and you do not indicate that you are one of them. Prove your knowledge with quotes. I have provided quotes. --Guest2625 (talk

) 13:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Daily Telegraph source [3]? Or the first source in the article, [4]? Or what? You are not making a lot of sense in either case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 listed in the section above --Guest2625 (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Starting with: Hakim MS. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not a reading service for you. As I say, those seven high-quality sources give mainstream context of how the science views the question of the virus's origin. Some of them discuss the lab leak conspiracy theory in so doing. Suggestions for content based on such high-quality sourcing could be helpful, but we need to avoid trying to undercut high-quality sources with lesser ones.

talk

) 13:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Everyone read the actual article #1 that our colleague Alexbrn provided for us. Then judge for yourselves what is true and what is false. I do not have time for such behaviour. A request for comment will likely be the only way forward. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Wikipedia is a voluntary project so you are not obliged to read all the sources other editors may present, but then don't expect other editors to believe you when you say you have selected the highest quality sources of all the sources that exist. TacticalTweaker (talk

) 21:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a consensus on what constitutes high-quality sources for SCI/MED topics, grounded in the

talk

) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Robby.is.on, can you point out where the "consensus against inclusion" of this, that you mention here, is please. I can't see it, and I find it hard to imagine why we want to leave misinformation (WHO's former position on this without also adding their later update) in an article condemning misinformation! -- DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@

UNDUE)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 21:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, so why hasn't their outdated statement also been removed from the section? What we currently have is an inaccurate account of their position - they now say they have not ruled out that hypothesis, yet our article still suggests that they have. And who, or what, is "MEDRS"? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:MEDRS, the accepted guidelines on sourcing information on medical topics, which I'd suggest you get thoroughly acquainted with before further editing in the COVID-area (I've added links in my comment above). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 21:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, thanks for the link. Do you have a view on the logic for leaving the inaccurate and outdated account of the WHO's position in the article? Note too that Professor John Watson, a UK scientist who was part of the WHO team that visited Wuhan, is reported today by The Independent as also saying that the hypothesis that the virus was spread from a laboratory in Wuhan "remained on the table".[5] -- DeFacto (talk). 22:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Although the headline is sensationalising it ("does not rule out"...); when you read further into it, it is clear that despite the hypothesis "remaining on the table", it is still not the preferred hypothesis, in the words of Watson himself:

“We were very clear in our ability to be able to ask questions about all of that,” he said. “That is a hypothesis that remains on the table and could certainly have further work done on it.”

China has faced claims that the Wuhan Institute of Virology could be the suspected source of the Covid-19 virus.

Last week, a team of experts from China and the WHO concluded that it was “extremely unlikely” that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory-related incident.

Prof Watson said the most likely source remained an “animal reservoir somewhere and that the infection got to humans, probably, through an intermediate host”.

However, there's also a bit of context that's missing: earlier in the article, Watson is even quoted as saying that even the origin of the virus in China could be put into question:

But he added that China was “by no means necessarily the place where the leap from animals to humans took place and I think we need to ensure that we are looking beyond the borders of China, as well as within China.”

Obviously, a scientist being thorough and listing every possible hypothesis is not the same as that hypothesis being worthy of detailed mention (for example, while it is true the cases for outside China are intriguing, that does not change that the current consensus is that the virus emerged in or near Wuhan); especially not based on interviews and press conferences... Given that Watson seems to believe that the most likely hypothesis is still the more mundane one, this doesn't radically change the outlook. Mentioning "further investigations into the origin of COVID" could maybe be done at the proposed

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 while avoiding giving a false sense of validity to a particular variant. I don't know how we should go about reconciliating the contradictory information (WHO investigation team says "does not merit further investigation"; WHO director says "all hypotheses still on the table"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 23:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, I think the best way to proceed is to succinctly add the latest information, as I did. Without it, we leave the reader with the incorrect impression that the WHO's view is clear-cut, and it is an invitation to those who know otherwise to attack the article. I propose that add the reliably sourced sentence On 12 February 2021, the WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stated that the hypothesis that Covid had originated in a laboratory in Wuhan had not been ruled out and required further study. This would clear up the matter and make this article more credible. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

He also didn't rule out "aliens brought it" explicitly when he said "all hypotheses remain open". That doesn't mean we should discuss "aliens brought it" as viable hypothesis in the article, and it doesn't mean he said "aliens brought it" requires further study. I don't mind quoting "all hypotheses remain open" but it should be done exactly like that. --mfb (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Mfb, I think you have misunderstand the situation here. He was commenting on a hypothesis that is still on the table as far as the WHO is concerned, and explicitly said it had not yet been ruled out by them and that it needed further study. Was your one about aliens ever on their table? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"He was commenting on a hypothesis" ← which single hypothesis was he commenting on? What is the wording that singles this one hypothesis out?

talk

) 18:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, there were apparently four hypotheses that were being considered: that it jumped from bats to another animal and then on to humans; it jumped directly from bats to humans; it travelled on frozen food; it escaped from a laboratory. He is reported to have said: "Having spoken with some members of the team, I wish to confirm that all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis and study." -- DeFacto (talk

). 18:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

His wording implies they are open to any new evidence set forth. This is how academics speak....not in terms of a black and white stance but acceptance that further research may yield a different perspective. But in no way is this an endorsement of anykind... its simply an academic who is open-minded and not speaking in absolutes. Critical and analytical thinking is a mainstay of Academia.--Moxy 🍁 18:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. If he would have thought the lab leak hypothesis would be a realistic option he could have said that explicitly. He did not. We shouldn't edit the article as if he would have. --mfb (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Mfb, do you think we should we knowingly leave the article in its current misleading state with it saying 'and dismissed the lab leak theory as "extremely unlikely" and not needing further study', when we now know they think it does need further study? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what about my comments was unclear. --mfb (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Mfb, this was a supplementary question as you hadn't covered it, and it is the point of this thread. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

When I added this here it was reverted stating that it doesn’t belong here but should be in covid 19 origin investigation page When I added it there it was reverted stating that this content has already been reverted. Don't add it again. I am yet to get a proper reason for the reverts. And its all reverts everytime. Not an edit / update / rewrite / delete etc

J mareeswaran (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• The headlines are not reliable per
  WP:HEADLINES. Having read the The Independent source, I'm okay with removing "and not needing further study" if editors really wish. But the source is clear that it remains very unlikely, and Prof Watson also says the most likely source is natural. ProcrastinatingReader (talk
  ) 01:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And yet another source as to why the interpretation of these WHO statements in popular press shouldn't always be taken at face value: from the MfD discussion. And the explicit question and answer: "Q: [...] Now that you've been there, do you have more reason to say it's "extremely unlikely" than before? A: Yes [...]" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, the statements in the "popular press", or at least the ones I brought here, were spot on, and reinforced by the Science article. Cherry picking, selective quoting, and loaded language to push a particular POV are never a good idea, we need to give due weight and balance all views when we are reporting opinion and interpretation as opposed to hard fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My statement wasn't in reply to you, sorry if that was mildly confusing. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader, yes, it's still their view that it is unlikely, but that wasn't being disputed here. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. Well, as a matter of fact, then I'm fine with removing "and not needing further study" as I say. Though, seems another editor already did so. How's the current paragraph look to you? Does it resolve your concerns? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, almost. I think it would still be better if it clarified that the WHO have not totally ruled out this hypothesis. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The current language already does that, with the long explanation before, and the fact that it says "extremely unlikely", not "impossible". Anyway, anybody mildly competent in the scientific method will know that it's difficult to "totally rule out" hypothesis such as this one, we do not need to make it explicit (which would probably bring too much UNDUE weight on this aspect). As modified by me and others, the current wording seems fine. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The difference between RaTG13 and SARS-Cov-2 is just about 300 Bytes. How can one rule out that any 300 Bytes are a product of randomness... hmm evolution and not forged? --Geysirhead (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Intention: This is about the last paragraph of 'Wuhan lab leak story'. The word 'theory' is replaced with the word 'hypothesis' in order to be more accurate, since this paragraph is about research the WHO did and not about beliefs that come from just anywhere. I also added a quote from the mission chief that gives more perspective on how he and his colleagues usually might talk about the lab leak hypothesis. It indicates that there was never much motivation to build up evidence for the lab leak hypothesis:

On February 9, 2021 a team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic for the World Health Organization said that that the coronavirus "most likely" originated in animals before spreading to humans, and rated the lab leak hypothesis as "extremely unlikely",^[1][2][3] with the WHO mission chief saying in a subsequent interview to Science that as a consequence of the investigation, the lab leak hypothesis was considered even more unlikely than before. Quote from the same interview after the mission chief was asked if it was a mistake to call the lab leak hypothesis 'extremely unlikely', when Tredos, director general of the WHO, had stated shortly after that 'all hypotheses are on the table.':

^[4] While the WHO investigation supported what most experts already expected, it could still take years to answer some questions about the origin of the pandemic.^[5] PleaseInvestIntoFusion (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed above extensively, and it is not getting done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

TNYT today: "A mild case [of COVID-19] is effectively the common cold." (It's a miracle!) Drsruli (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Link?Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/briefing/ted-cruz-texas-water-iran-nuclear.html Drsruli (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

For context, the full paragraph is:

To take one example: The initial research trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines did not study whether a vaccinated person could get infected and infect another person. But the accumulated scientific evidence suggests the chances are very small that a vaccinated person could infect someone else with a severe case of Covid. (A mild case is effectively the common cold.) You wouldn’t know that from much of the public discussion.

I don't think this particular bit warrants much inclusion in the article (a lay press source saying mild Covid is effectively the common cold...). However, other bits about the title subject (vaccine alarmism) seem more appropriate. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Coronaviruses are indeed among a number of viruses that can cause the common cold. Common cold can also progress to pneumonia, etc. In the case of COVID-19 it's more contagious and lethal than the usual, so comparing it to the common cold is not something most sources do. —PaleoNeonate – 23:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In the context of famous people comparing it to the flu? Drsruli (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverted deletion: Plenty of precedents in this section: See i.e., 3.3 Allegations of inflated death counts Activist (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And would you mind pointing out where in the (now removed again) text there was any claim about inflated death counts or anything? To me it just reads like usual news and no misinformation involved in that. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

To be an inflated death count (of 1?) you need a reliable source claiming that Taiwan exaggerated its death count. A source merely reporting about a death cannot do that. This is not COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan. --mfb (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Frontiers Removes Controversial Ivermectin Paper Pre-Publication --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Already there . Seems to be an uptick in sources' coverage of this.

talk

) 05:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

While the gist of this section is truthful beyond doubt, the argument it makes is undermined by inaccuracy.

Consider the summing-up last sentence of the section: "The rumor of Lieber, a chemist in an area entirely unrelated to the virus research, creating the coronavirus and selling it to China has been discredited." The rumor does seem to have been discredited, but "a chemist in an area entirely unrelated to the virus research" is manifestly untrue. I adduce two straightforward examples both of which have ample corroborating evidence.

First, Lieber, was one of the founders of Nanosys Inc., whose director of business development was quoted in 2003 as follows: "In addition...Nanosys is working with the defense industry to develop biological sensors to detect chemical or biological attacks in advance, says Mr. Empedocles." ^[1]

Second and more directly, Lieber himself can be found announcing through various media channels his interest in developing nanoscale detection systems for identifying the presence of viruses, including bioweapon viruses. Direct Lieber quote from 2004: "Viruses are among the most important causes of human disease and are of increasing concern as agents for bioterrorism...Our work shows that nanoscale silicon wires can be configured as detectors that turn on or off in the presence of a single virus particle."^[2]. That's from the topmost search result for a google search of "Charles Lieber nano detection bioweapons"; many other similar results in the list.

The concluding sentence of the section should be changed to ""The rumor of Lieber creating the coronavirus and selling it to China has been discredited." TadeuszMorgensternPodjazd (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

What's I feel is missing from this page is a paragraph on virus denialism. I have covered this in a 25-part series THE CORONA CONSPIRACY on my website Integral World. While David Icke and Thomas Cowan are mentioned under the 5G section, there is a larger group of those who deny the very existence of viruses, and therefore of SARS-CoV-2. Examples are: David Icke, Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Stefano Scoglio, Torsten Engelbrecht, Samantha Bailey, etc. In general they claim that viruses are actually exosomes generated by our cells when under stress (by various causes, including but not limited to 5G). The common argument here is that "the virus has never been isolated." Icke initially launched Kaufman to fame in his London Real interview, and Kaufman has teamed up with Cowan, Lanka and Scoglio recently to spread this view that viruses don't exist and a healthy lifestyle is the cure for all ills. Since these articles are written by myself I don't know exactly how to mention this on this Wikipedia page and avoid self-promotion. Any suggestions?

My work is mentioned by skeptic David Gorski in his blog post on germ theory denial.

FrankVisser101 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Blogs are typically not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, as they are self-published sources. See the policy on

Are there more mainstream sources which have covered these informal group's fringe views? Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, linking to one's own website can be seen as

conflict on interest policies. On the content issue, there probably is something somewhere about general denial of the existence of the vaccine or the existence of a problem (Trump's "this will go away by itself" comments at around this time last year, for ex.). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 16:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

cf "There are false claims spread that the usage of masks causes adverse health-related issues such as low blood oxygen levels,[258]" - this reference 258 leads to " Bessonov, Ania (18 July 2020). "Do masks reduce your oxygen levels? Your COVID-19 questions answered". CBC News. - "I haven't seen any medical or scientific evidence that shows that wearing a mask depletes your body of oxygen," said Dr. Susy Hota, medical director of infection prevention and control at Toronto's University Health Network." We need better references, the references the Dr. bases her claim upon. Can anybody help? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't think we need more references to prove a negative. A medical expert (subject matter expert) being cited for their professional opinion, about face masks (which have been worn without issue by medical experts since quite a while) is not an exceptional claim - and she's saying there's "no evidence" for the exceptional claim, so not like we'd have something to cite, besides conspiracy theorist nutjobs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)