![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
Hello,
The information seems to come from, one the "UN Humans Rights Office of the High Commisionner". The text is named as follow " Asia: Bachelet alarmed by clampdown on freedom of expression during COVID-19"
You can look at it by yourself, but here is an interesting quote :
"The High Commissioner recognised the need to restrict harmful misinformation or disinformation to protect public health, or any incitement of hatred towards minority groups, but said this should not result in purposeful or unintentional censorship, which undermines trust. “While Governments may have a legitimate interest in controlling the spread of misinformation in a volatile and sensitive context, this must be proportionate and protect freedom of expression,” Bachelet said.
In Bangladesh, dozens of people are reported to have had cases filed against them or have been arrested under the Digital Security Act in the last three months for allegedly spreading misinformation about COVID-19 or criticizing the Government response"
The first modfiaction to do would be to source the claim. I would also suggest modifying the phrase in order to precise these people weren't always arrested because of spreading misinformation but also sometimes for opposing government response Tech-ScienceAddict ( talk) 23:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech-ScienceAddict ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I cannot edit the article. Please add: https://factcheck.afp.com/hoax-circulates-online-switzerland-has-officially-confirmed-coronavirus-tests-are-fake. CutePeach ( talk) 17:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-call-for-masks-first-100-days-in-office-inauguration/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55182309
https://www.cnn.com › biden-harris-interview-covid-mask
https://people.com/politics/joe-biden-ask-americans-wear-masks-for-first-100-day-in-office/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/among-first-acts-biden-to-call-for-100-days-of-mask-wearing
Drsruli ( talk) 23:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Wuhab Lab leak origin hypothosis does (no longer) belong here. At this point it should get it's own Wikipedia page that is more neutral and does not assume it to be misinformation beforehand.
Although there is no credible expert that says the theory has been proven, there are now a couple of credible experts including the director of the CDC at the time of the start of the pandemic (Robert Redfield) that say it is likely enough to be taken seriously as an origin of the virus. In the specific case of Robert Redfield he even told CNN that he believes that (At this point) it is a more likely origin of the virus than a natural bat derived virus origin.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-idUSKBN2BU2J2
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56581246
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-wuhan-scientists-initially-worried-coronavirus-leaked-lab-2021-3?international=true&r=US&IR=T 80.61.240.85 ( talk) 06:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/covid-lab-leak-theory-pandemic-research.html
Make of this what you will. 24.18.126.43 ( talk) 08:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Anything clear - you agree with this position WP:NOLABLEAK: User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak - sorry without strong causal evidence -this is a conspiration theory.It is the same mistake to say - the laboratory thesis is 100% correct. How do you already know this ? Private rules do not play a role here. "So stop conflating the science with the politics" - One has to be blind not to see - that the laboratory thesis is a highly political issue. The scientific investigation of the laboratory thesis was explicitly excluded (= forbidden) by China - this has less to do with science, but with politics. Who does not understand this - has understood factually nothing.-- Empiricus-sextus ( talk) 21:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, you don't understand the relationship between politics and science in China - the CP decides about truth of the origin, the corona virus in china - not science. "The People's Republic of China," says Basel-based China expert Ralph Weber in DW, "tries to control how we think and talk about China. There should only be good stories about China!" It doesn't seem to sound good when, in the Corona children's book "A Corona Rainbow for Anna and Moritz," Moritz, an elementary school student, says, "The virus comes from China and has spread from there all over the world." and "But that also includes telling people in China that things aren't going so well in Europe. That Europe is a discontinued model, that it has failed, that democracy as practiced in Europe doesn't work." In this way, he said, the People's Republic puts itself in a good light and makes "a kind of authoritarianism" socially acceptable." The French scientific study shows clearly that there is neither for the natural nor the artificial origin - at present evidences. You do not understand that.....-- Empiricus-sextus ( talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
China has engaged in hard-core misinformation on COVID 19 and the WHO investigation has been a victim of non-transparency. You have to be very naive not to see this. For you, China is the land of free science - you have to be very naive to believe such fairy tales-- Empiricus-sextus ( talk) 22:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@ RandomCanadian:, our colleagues Empiricus-sextus and Alexpl have expressed a viewpoint opposing yours and provided articles from reliable sources Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Deutsche Welle to support their arguments. I agree with their viewpoint and I don’t agree with the unsupported claims made in the WP:NOLABLEAK essay. Calling them trolls is a personal attack. Tagging ToBeFree. CutePeach ( talk) 15:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Regular administrative and internal review of high-level biosafety laboratories worldwide.At which point, it's about WP:DUE again. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no "established consensus" - not in science, not in the states/politics, not in the WHO, not in public opin(media) -and not here. It is still no evidence about true or false possible - about none of the hypotheses. China has banned or is censoring any publication on the labor problem - i.e. there will be no more publications here with COVID-10 reference, only what China do for biosecurity. But the scientific publications, also this from 2019: " Current status and future challenges of high-level biosafety laboratories in China" are in clear contradiction with the statements of the authorities that the laboratories are - safe - in China.
"*3.2. Inadequate biosafety management systems:
Since the promulgation and implementation of “Regulations on Biosafety Management of Pathogenic Microorganism Laboratories,” issued by State Council in 2004, a series of other regulations have been formulated by different ministries and local governments. These have considered the examination and approval of laboratory construction and accreditation, authorization of research activities, as well as pathogen, waste, and laboratory animal management regulations. Although these regulations wholesomely cover all aspects of construction, management, and eventual operation of BSLs, their enforcement still needs to be strengthened. Furthermore, due to different investment sources, affiliations, and management systems, the implementation of these laboratories faces difficulties converging objectives and cooperation workflows. This scenario puts laboratory biosafety at risk since the implementation efficiency and timely operations are relatively compromised.
Depending on the size and location, building a modern BSL costs millions of US dollars, and in China the funds for construction are typically raised by the state, local governments, upstream authorities, and institutions. Additionally, 5–10% of construction costs are needed for annual operation. However, the maintenance cost is generally neglected; several high-level BSLs have insufficient operational funds for routine yet vital processes. Due to the limited resources, some BSL-3 laboratories run on extremely minimal operational costs or in some cases none at all.12
In the process of BSL construction, operation, and management, highly skilled professional teams from diverse disciplines such as architectural science, materials science, aerodynamics, automatic controlling, environmental science, microbiology, botany, biosafety, and systems engineering are required. In addition, biosafety measures and practices are vital in daily laboratory operations hence a highly qualified, motivated, and skilled biosafety supervisor is needed not only for overseeing solid containment but also in laboratory risk management. Currently, most laboratories lack specialized biosafety managers and engineers. In such facilities, some of the skilled staff is composed by part-time researchers. This makes it difficult to identify and mitigate potential safety hazards in facility and equipment operation early enough. Nonetheless, biosafety awareness, professional knowledge, and operational skill training still need to be improved among laboratory personnel."
There is scientific evidence that labs in China have safety problems - and yes, this is part of COVID 19 - the biosafety law was strengthened because of COVID 19 by Chinas President himself already in February 2021- see this scientific publication !-- Empiricus-sextus ( talk) 18:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Until [..] a majority of reliable medical sources make that determination, we will not include that view as the "consensus view".
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"change Phenomenom to Phenomenon" Fix typo 31.41.45.190 ( talk) 23:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"change asymtomatic to asymptomatic" Fix typo
"Change empty space near bottom to {{ Authority control}}" Add content 31.41.45.190 ( talk) 23:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions section only contain claims that TCM treatments are effective against Covid-19 with no mention of the fact that they actually aren't?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Discussion_of_4th_origin_hypothesis. Discussion on how much due weight to give to the "lab leak" idea in the Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a new article up on
Science Based Medicine about the
origins of SARS-COVS-2, and relevent to this page is the discussion they have regarding misinformation, and how certain claims are repeated as evidence for a lab origin when they are not. As usual with SBM, it is RS but not peer-reviewed, so only useful for coverage of fringe topics, but they do include links to peer-reviewed literature to explain their reasoning, so that may be useful as well.
Hyperion35 (
talk) 15:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) Didn't realize that Alexbrn had already started a section on the SBM article. I'm obviously not the only editor who follows SBM.
Hyperion35 (
talk)
15:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Contributors to this article may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information about the breadth of WP:MEDRS. Adoring nanny ( talk) 22:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
This story from The New York Times is very informative:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I have removed this:
There is a claim that mRNA vaccines are still experimental. mRNA vaccines have been used by over 8 million people. At the moment there is no evidence of the development of autoimmune diseases. [1]
because the answer depends on exactly how you define "experimental". In a scientific model, a thing stops being experimental when we know whether it works. But in a legal/regulatory framework, a vaccine stops being experimental when the government(s) say so. Most vaccines are not fully authorized, which means they're "experimental" in that sense. I think it is best for this article not to address this complex question at all. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be more appropriate to change "his or her" to "their" under in the "xenophobic attacks" part of the article. Typhlosionator ( talk) 10:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Nothing in the talk page nor the article mentions the important question, why. Why is misinformation spreading? Is it spreading faster, if so why? Why are once reasonable persons now believing things like the vaccines will make you autistic and prime you for mind control? I am genuinely curious about this issue, it goes beyond the article in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caustic3 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Now, finding good documented evidence from reliable sources is difficult, not the least because we're essentially looking for a reliable secondary source to report on what is by definition an jnreliabke primary source. Science Based Medicine has published a few articles examining the role of conspiracy theories in this pandemic that might be helpful. Hyperion35 ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.Basically, we should be careful about citing actual biomedical info from them (but SBM almost always provides links to the sources for any biomedical claims, so use those sources instead), but for reporting on quackery and fringe stuff, they are a reliable source, and in some cases one of the few reliable sources that covers these topics. So for example they covered one of the most prominent researchers who promoted hydroxychloroquine as a supposed treatment for COVID-19, and so we could use them as a source for how the researcher misrepresented and promoted hydroxychloroquine. To the extent that they cover actual real treatments for COVID-19, or research that showed that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective, we'd be better off citing the peer-reviewed research that they cite. Hyperion35 ( talk) 15:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
r/NoNewNormal definitely warrants a mention. Maybe r/CoronavirusCircleJerk too, and also r/FuckMasks (although the latter has been banned already). We're not going back to brunch! Skippy2520 ( talk) 01:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Obviously we don't need to link to the top conspiracy theory sub-reddits here. They don't support any information in the article, and probably fail the external link policy. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
In fact, its decisions in this time are so far removed from the established precepts of practising medicine that it’s reasonable to wonder if its only agenda is to do the opposite of what is right.I had simply assumed so from its name. Hyperion35 ( talk) 14:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1.full
"Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable." Letter published in Science, co-signed by Ralph Baric. That officially makes lab leak hypothesis not a conspiracy theory. Should be removed from this page. -- Cowrider ( talk) 22:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories regarding the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic."Unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories" does not accurately and neutrally convey the degree of support in the mainstream scientific community for the validity and likelihood of the lab leak hypothesis.
There is plenty of mis-information and conspiracy theorizing regarding lab leaks that must remain in this article. There is also legitimate scientific inquiry into a possible lab leak. That scientific inquiry should be discussed at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
What you call "circumstantial evidence" isn't even that. It's WP:SYNTH, trying to tie together disparate facts into a narrative.Nope, this entire argument is laid out in-depth here [21], not synth from disparate facts. And there is nothing conservative or encyclopedic about calling the lab leak hypothesis a fringe conspiracy theory, when numerous reliable sources are now calling it a mainstream theory and explicitly denouncing its characterization as a conspiracy theory. [22] [23] [24] [25] Stonkaments ( talk) 04:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 Misinformation, and to state anything more than that a lab leak is not technically impossible is misinformation. The MEDRS sources that we have all say that it is highly unlikely, and that a zoonotic transmission in the wild is the most likely scenario. By definition, any any attempt to pretend that a lab leak is likely is misinformation. There are also claims that HIV was manufactured in a lab, and this may not be technically impossible, but all MEDRS are very clear about why there is a broad scientific consensus that HIV1 and HIV2 resulted from two separate zoonotic events when a hunter butchered a non-human primate that carried SIV in the wild, and so this is what we report. As I mentioned on the talk page of SARS-COV2, I think that part of this isa problem with understanding MEDRS, but a larger problem is trying to explain in a non-technical manner to non-experts how to evaluate evidence like an expert. Hyperion35 ( talk) 03:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello again again all! Here is an article that gives further weight to the leak theory: https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/six-essential-stories-on-the-origins-of-covid-19/ . It states that "In the spring of 2020, the so-called “lab leak” hypothesis, which many scientists now say publicly needs to be interrogated further, was often characterized as something of a conspiracy theory in news articles." I think this article still portrays the "lab leak" hypothesis as something of a conspiracy theory. Portraying the "lab leak" hypothesis as a conspiracy theory is becoming more and more misinformation in itself it seems. Nakerlund ( talk) 16:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
plausible, but unproven, which is the definition of things that we don't usually cover. Some claims about a lab leak are very clearly conspiracy theories, and several of those stories mention that the claims came from politicians who have very clear non-neutral motives. It is also worth pointing out that if the scientists mentioned in these articles had more definitive evidence, they would submit it for peer review rather than talking to journalists or writing letters to editors. Hyperion35 ( talk) 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
PolitiFact withdrew their fact check on this issue https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/ . Wikipedia should not follow media trends but then it should not have labeled the Wuhan Leak Theory misinformation in the first place either Nakerlund ( talk) 11:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
"Wikipedia should not follow media trends"← preach it! This is absolutely right and why we stick to secondary, scholarly, peer-reviewed, reputably-published, on-point sources rather than trying to track shifts in journalism. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
secondary, scholarly, peer-reviewed, reputably-published, on-point sourcesclaiming a lab leak is a conspiracy theory? Politifact editors made the following comment:
Editor’s note, May 17, 2021: When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database pending a more thorough review. Currently, we consider the claim to be unsupported by evidence and in dispute. The original fact-check in its entirety is preserved below for transparency and archival purposes. Read our May 2021 report for more on the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19.. Also they have a new page on the virus origin: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/may/17/debating-origins-covid-19-virus-what-we-know-what-/ that states
Scientists who have studied the coronavirus have generally concluded that it resembles naturally occurring viruses. But researchers are paying more attention to the possibility that the virus somehow leaked from the lab, though there’s still nothing conclusive.I think this is how Wikipedia should report the lab leak hypothesis. We don't know the virus origins. A lab leak is a "possibility" not a "conspiracy theory"/"Misinformation". -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Therefore, there are discussions and unjustified theory—promoted by the US President Donald Trump—whether one of the two laboratories in Wuhan could have been the source of SARS‐CoV‐2.This section doesn't do as good a job making this distinction between plausible (but unlikely) theory and misinformation about it as it could and should. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
the WHO found that a worthy hypothesis to investigate (published later than most of our sources on misinformation), but an unlikely onedo you have an exact source for this? It could be used as a good basis to fix this. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
"The unintentional release of a bat virus theory is not misinformation or a conspiracy theory."← It could be, according to RS. Or maybe just unfounded speculation. This is an article about misinformation - so we find what good RS says about that and reflect it faithfully. Not sure why some editors want to make it more complicated. If there's a desire to write about "legitimate" ideas, find a source describing them and an article suitable for their inclusion. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Introduction through a laboratory incidentas a possible hypotheis although
In view of the above, a laboratory origin of the pandemic was considered to be extremely unlikely.
There is no record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019, or genomes that in combination could provide a SARS-CoV-2 genome.. This has lead the head of the WHO to state:
the theory that the virus might have come from a leak in a laboratory "requires further investigation, potential with additional missions involving specialist experts," Dr Tedros said on Tuesday. "Let me say clearly that as far as WHO is concerned, all hypothesis remain on the table," he added.[28]-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome [29].IMO, this is precisely why we should draw the misinformation line here, between the scientifically certain and uncertain. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I updated this section to better distinguish the legitimate science (mainstream and fringe) from the misinformation and conspiracy. While I didn't include the Science open letter, I didn't feel it fit the topic (that is, discussing misinformation about the lab). There may be room for more detail that not every dispute of the mainstream analysis of the theory is misinfo/conspiracy, but I'm not sure it's necessary compared to just pointing out the clear misinformation. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
withThough the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined
. "Origin" is too vague of a word, my proposed phrasing solves the ambiguity. Otherwise, a reader will believe animal origin is disputed, and it isn't. Forich ( talk) 02:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Though the animal source that caused the initial outbreak has not been determined, and the complete molecular history tracing the virus to a direct ancestor is still puzzling
Thanks for rewriting. In regard to this statement:
A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the lab leak theory as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence
To adhere to NPOV, propose to change to:
A WHO-China joint study team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the lab leak theory as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence
i.e. This was the conclusion of the joint study team, of whom WHO scientists only comprised half. We should also note that the report has been challenged. Either referencing the joint statement by 14 countries, or the Science letter, or Tedros' statement that a laboratory leak requires further investigation. -Unsigned comment by Cowrider
ignore the WHO Director General’s criticisms of the assessments made in the report on one of the hypothesis?1. I don't characterize the DG's statements as 'criticisms', at least not in terms of 'faults'. 2. The selective quoting of his statements regarding 'one of the hypothesis' is the POV problem, since he spent more time addressing areas the other three hypotheses needed more investigation as well.
The opening sentence in the Ivermectin section is a paraphrase of an opinion published by the New York Times, where the part relevant to ivermectin (their opinion of the mention of ivermectin at the hearing) is based on a disagreement between the presenter on ivermectin, and the opinion of the National Institutes of Health at that time. The National Institutes of Health has since gone from recommending against the use of ivermectin in the prophylaxis and early treatment of COVID-19, to being neutral on the question, and the corresponding section of COVID-19 drug repurposing research now cites that updated guidance. It probably makes sense to reframe or remove this statement, since it is based on an opinion which is then based on an expired observation. Aaron Muir Hamilton <aaron@correspondwith.me> ( talk) 01:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have time to dig into this right now but maybe someone else will. Daily Dot: Influencers asked to spread anti-vax comments by mysterious PR agency the agency was apparently a Russian (?) front and called itself Fazze. The Wall Street Journal covered it too. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I sense a frustration among some editors that two very different questions (first, is the virus origin natural or engineered; second, did it reach the human population via the laboratory or not) are conflated; so that the clear scientific consensus on the first question (that it has a natural origin) is used to close down any suggestion of credibility of the second question. I simply cannot see why we are not treating these two questions separately. With respect to all. Springnuts ( talk) 23:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Why are quote marks being placed around lab in this article. Please read MOS:QUOTEPOV. I am unable to see their purpose. In the sentences use words instead to describe what is being attempted to be said with the quote marks. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 04:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional:
- Acceptable: Siskel and Ebert called the film "unforgettable".
- Unacceptable: The site is considered "sacred" by the religion's scriptures.
- Permissible: Siskel and Ebert called the film interesting.
- Unnecessary and may imply doubt: Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting".
- Should be quoted: Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting but heart-wrenching".
I propose this sentence in the article:
is changed to
This sentence is concise and explains which of the three lab origin hypotheses is being discussed. If there is consensus to fix this sentence, then the next '"lab" origin' phrase in the article can be discussed. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 11:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I am seeing a lot of comments in the usual places about this one:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Add a section on how one of the major proponents of the mis-information regarding Ivermectin as a treatment is now also offering a 2 million dollar reward for anybody that can prove it is not an effective treatment, reference to this mis-guided mis-information prank: https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=ChannelEmail&utm_campaign=Ivermectin&utm_content=Popular%2BTrending Adriaandh ( talk) 18:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The WHO-China investigation should be labeled as such, for what it is. It is how it is reported in most media [1], on its own official report [2], and on many Wikipedia pages. User RandomCanadian removed the "China" part for no reason. Eccekevin ( talk) 02:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
From SBM here, offering some good coverage of the wingnuttery swirling around the "lab leak" narrative. Could be useful to help re-focus on misinformation (the actual topic of this article), which is otherwise drifting a bit too much into editorial musings about the topic at large. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor wishes to add in the introduction section of the lab origin section the following material:
This content is a non-neutral summary of the lab accident subsection and the references in that section. The sentence states that the lab accident idea is a conspiracy theory. This goes against the references in the section and current consensus among wikipedia editors not to treat the lab accident as a conspiracy theory. President Joe Biden and the president of the WHO have called for investigations of the possibility of a lab accident. They are not conspiracy theorists. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 10:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.This occasionally comes up when SBM gets mentioned. Basically, for biomed stuff, we'd want to cite whatever sources that the SBM article uses, but it's often a good NPOV secondary source for fringe claims, since they're often one of the few reputable sites that covers fringe claims neutrally. Neutral in this context meaning that SBM does not repeat fringe claims but rather examines them in comparison to the generally accepted scientific consensus. Hyperion35 ( talk) 22:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer Liaison Physician as well as an Associate Professor of Surgery and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University.As a quick non-policy anecdotal note on the topic, early in the year when another surgeon wrote an op-ed suggesting 'herd immunity by April', a doctor friend of mine described it as "surgeons: sometimes right, always certain". Bakkster Man ( talk) 00:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
If, as I have, you’ve been paying attention to these things for a number of years, you know that, whenever there is a major outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic of infectious disease, one conspiracy theory always—and I do mean always—arises. That conspiracy theory is that the causative microbe was developed in a laboratory and/or escaped a laboratory. HIV, H1N1, the original SARS, Ebola virus, every single one of them gave birth to such conspiracy theories. Unsurprisingly, given its global scope and death toll, so it was with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
Hello,
The information seems to come from, one the "UN Humans Rights Office of the High Commisionner". The text is named as follow " Asia: Bachelet alarmed by clampdown on freedom of expression during COVID-19"
You can look at it by yourself, but here is an interesting quote :
"The High Commissioner recognised the need to restrict harmful misinformation or disinformation to protect public health, or any incitement of hatred towards minority groups, but said this should not result in purposeful or unintentional censorship, which undermines trust. “While Governments may have a legitimate interest in controlling the spread of misinformation in a volatile and sensitive context, this must be proportionate and protect freedom of expression,” Bachelet said.
In Bangladesh, dozens of people are reported to have had cases filed against them or have been arrested under the Digital Security Act in the last three months for allegedly spreading misinformation about COVID-19 or criticizing the Government response"
The first modfiaction to do would be to source the claim. I would also suggest modifying the phrase in order to precise these people weren't always arrested because of spreading misinformation but also sometimes for opposing government response Tech-ScienceAddict ( talk) 23:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech-ScienceAddict ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I cannot edit the article. Please add: https://factcheck.afp.com/hoax-circulates-online-switzerland-has-officially-confirmed-coronavirus-tests-are-fake. CutePeach ( talk) 17:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-call-for-masks-first-100-days-in-office-inauguration/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55182309
https://www.cnn.com › biden-harris-interview-covid-mask
https://people.com/politics/joe-biden-ask-americans-wear-masks-for-first-100-day-in-office/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/among-first-acts-biden-to-call-for-100-days-of-mask-wearing
Drsruli ( talk) 23:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Wuhab Lab leak origin hypothosis does (no longer) belong here. At this point it should get it's own Wikipedia page that is more neutral and does not assume it to be misinformation beforehand.
Although there is no credible expert that says the theory has been proven, there are now a couple of credible experts including the director of the CDC at the time of the start of the pandemic (Robert Redfield) that say it is likely enough to be taken seriously as an origin of the virus. In the specific case of Robert Redfield he even told CNN that he believes that (At this point) it is a more likely origin of the virus than a natural bat derived virus origin.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-idUSKBN2BU2J2
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56581246
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-wuhan-scientists-initially-worried-coronavirus-leaked-lab-2021-3?international=true&r=US&IR=T 80.61.240.85 ( talk) 06:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/covid-lab-leak-theory-pandemic-research.html
Make of this what you will. 24.18.126.43 ( talk) 08:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Anything clear - you agree with this position WP:NOLABLEAK: User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak - sorry without strong causal evidence -this is a conspiration theory.It is the same mistake to say - the laboratory thesis is 100% correct. How do you already know this ? Private rules do not play a role here. "So stop conflating the science with the politics" - One has to be blind not to see - that the laboratory thesis is a highly political issue. The scientific investigation of the laboratory thesis was explicitly excluded (= forbidden) by China - this has less to do with science, but with politics. Who does not understand this - has understood factually nothing.-- Empiricus-sextus ( talk) 21:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, you don't understand the relationship between politics and science in China - the CP decides about truth of the origin, the corona virus in china - not science. "The People's Republic of China," says Basel-based China expert Ralph Weber in DW, "tries to control how we think and talk about China. There should only be good stories about China!" It doesn't seem to sound good when, in the Corona children's book "A Corona Rainbow for Anna and Moritz," Moritz, an elementary school student, says, "The virus comes from China and has spread from there all over the world." and "But that also includes telling people in China that things aren't going so well in Europe. That Europe is a discontinued model, that it has failed, that democracy as practiced in Europe doesn't work." In this way, he said, the People's Republic puts itself in a good light and makes "a kind of authoritarianism" socially acceptable." The French scientific study shows clearly that there is neither for the natural nor the artificial origin - at present evidences. You do not understand that.....-- Empiricus-sextus ( talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
China has engaged in hard-core misinformation on COVID 19 and the WHO investigation has been a victim of non-transparency. You have to be very naive not to see this. For you, China is the land of free science - you have to be very naive to believe such fairy tales-- Empiricus-sextus ( talk) 22:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@ RandomCanadian:, our colleagues Empiricus-sextus and Alexpl have expressed a viewpoint opposing yours and provided articles from reliable sources Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Deutsche Welle to support their arguments. I agree with their viewpoint and I don’t agree with the unsupported claims made in the WP:NOLABLEAK essay. Calling them trolls is a personal attack. Tagging ToBeFree. CutePeach ( talk) 15:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Regular administrative and internal review of high-level biosafety laboratories worldwide.At which point, it's about WP:DUE again. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no "established consensus" - not in science, not in the states/politics, not in the WHO, not in public opin(media) -and not here. It is still no evidence about true or false possible - about none of the hypotheses. China has banned or is censoring any publication on the labor problem - i.e. there will be no more publications here with COVID-10 reference, only what China do for biosecurity. But the scientific publications, also this from 2019: " Current status and future challenges of high-level biosafety laboratories in China" are in clear contradiction with the statements of the authorities that the laboratories are - safe - in China.
"*3.2. Inadequate biosafety management systems:
Since the promulgation and implementation of “Regulations on Biosafety Management of Pathogenic Microorganism Laboratories,” issued by State Council in 2004, a series of other regulations have been formulated by different ministries and local governments. These have considered the examination and approval of laboratory construction and accreditation, authorization of research activities, as well as pathogen, waste, and laboratory animal management regulations. Although these regulations wholesomely cover all aspects of construction, management, and eventual operation of BSLs, their enforcement still needs to be strengthened. Furthermore, due to different investment sources, affiliations, and management systems, the implementation of these laboratories faces difficulties converging objectives and cooperation workflows. This scenario puts laboratory biosafety at risk since the implementation efficiency and timely operations are relatively compromised.
Depending on the size and location, building a modern BSL costs millions of US dollars, and in China the funds for construction are typically raised by the state, local governments, upstream authorities, and institutions. Additionally, 5–10% of construction costs are needed for annual operation. However, the maintenance cost is generally neglected; several high-level BSLs have insufficient operational funds for routine yet vital processes. Due to the limited resources, some BSL-3 laboratories run on extremely minimal operational costs or in some cases none at all.12
In the process of BSL construction, operation, and management, highly skilled professional teams from diverse disciplines such as architectural science, materials science, aerodynamics, automatic controlling, environmental science, microbiology, botany, biosafety, and systems engineering are required. In addition, biosafety measures and practices are vital in daily laboratory operations hence a highly qualified, motivated, and skilled biosafety supervisor is needed not only for overseeing solid containment but also in laboratory risk management. Currently, most laboratories lack specialized biosafety managers and engineers. In such facilities, some of the skilled staff is composed by part-time researchers. This makes it difficult to identify and mitigate potential safety hazards in facility and equipment operation early enough. Nonetheless, biosafety awareness, professional knowledge, and operational skill training still need to be improved among laboratory personnel."
There is scientific evidence that labs in China have safety problems - and yes, this is part of COVID 19 - the biosafety law was strengthened because of COVID 19 by Chinas President himself already in February 2021- see this scientific publication !-- Empiricus-sextus ( talk) 18:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Until [..] a majority of reliable medical sources make that determination, we will not include that view as the "consensus view".
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"change Phenomenom to Phenomenon" Fix typo 31.41.45.190 ( talk) 23:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"change asymtomatic to asymptomatic" Fix typo
"Change empty space near bottom to {{ Authority control}}" Add content 31.41.45.190 ( talk) 23:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions section only contain claims that TCM treatments are effective against Covid-19 with no mention of the fact that they actually aren't?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Discussion_of_4th_origin_hypothesis. Discussion on how much due weight to give to the "lab leak" idea in the Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a new article up on
Science Based Medicine about the
origins of SARS-COVS-2, and relevent to this page is the discussion they have regarding misinformation, and how certain claims are repeated as evidence for a lab origin when they are not. As usual with SBM, it is RS but not peer-reviewed, so only useful for coverage of fringe topics, but they do include links to peer-reviewed literature to explain their reasoning, so that may be useful as well.
Hyperion35 (
talk) 15:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) Didn't realize that Alexbrn had already started a section on the SBM article. I'm obviously not the only editor who follows SBM.
Hyperion35 (
talk)
15:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Contributors to this article may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information about the breadth of WP:MEDRS. Adoring nanny ( talk) 22:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
This story from The New York Times is very informative:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I have removed this:
There is a claim that mRNA vaccines are still experimental. mRNA vaccines have been used by over 8 million people. At the moment there is no evidence of the development of autoimmune diseases. [1]
because the answer depends on exactly how you define "experimental". In a scientific model, a thing stops being experimental when we know whether it works. But in a legal/regulatory framework, a vaccine stops being experimental when the government(s) say so. Most vaccines are not fully authorized, which means they're "experimental" in that sense. I think it is best for this article not to address this complex question at all. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be more appropriate to change "his or her" to "their" under in the "xenophobic attacks" part of the article. Typhlosionator ( talk) 10:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Nothing in the talk page nor the article mentions the important question, why. Why is misinformation spreading? Is it spreading faster, if so why? Why are once reasonable persons now believing things like the vaccines will make you autistic and prime you for mind control? I am genuinely curious about this issue, it goes beyond the article in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caustic3 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Now, finding good documented evidence from reliable sources is difficult, not the least because we're essentially looking for a reliable secondary source to report on what is by definition an jnreliabke primary source. Science Based Medicine has published a few articles examining the role of conspiracy theories in this pandemic that might be helpful. Hyperion35 ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.Basically, we should be careful about citing actual biomedical info from them (but SBM almost always provides links to the sources for any biomedical claims, so use those sources instead), but for reporting on quackery and fringe stuff, they are a reliable source, and in some cases one of the few reliable sources that covers these topics. So for example they covered one of the most prominent researchers who promoted hydroxychloroquine as a supposed treatment for COVID-19, and so we could use them as a source for how the researcher misrepresented and promoted hydroxychloroquine. To the extent that they cover actual real treatments for COVID-19, or research that showed that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective, we'd be better off citing the peer-reviewed research that they cite. Hyperion35 ( talk) 15:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
r/NoNewNormal definitely warrants a mention. Maybe r/CoronavirusCircleJerk too, and also r/FuckMasks (although the latter has been banned already). We're not going back to brunch! Skippy2520 ( talk) 01:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Obviously we don't need to link to the top conspiracy theory sub-reddits here. They don't support any information in the article, and probably fail the external link policy. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
In fact, its decisions in this time are so far removed from the established precepts of practising medicine that it’s reasonable to wonder if its only agenda is to do the opposite of what is right.I had simply assumed so from its name. Hyperion35 ( talk) 14:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1.full
"Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable." Letter published in Science, co-signed by Ralph Baric. That officially makes lab leak hypothesis not a conspiracy theory. Should be removed from this page. -- Cowrider ( talk) 22:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories regarding the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic."Unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories" does not accurately and neutrally convey the degree of support in the mainstream scientific community for the validity and likelihood of the lab leak hypothesis.
There is plenty of mis-information and conspiracy theorizing regarding lab leaks that must remain in this article. There is also legitimate scientific inquiry into a possible lab leak. That scientific inquiry should be discussed at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
What you call "circumstantial evidence" isn't even that. It's WP:SYNTH, trying to tie together disparate facts into a narrative.Nope, this entire argument is laid out in-depth here [21], not synth from disparate facts. And there is nothing conservative or encyclopedic about calling the lab leak hypothesis a fringe conspiracy theory, when numerous reliable sources are now calling it a mainstream theory and explicitly denouncing its characterization as a conspiracy theory. [22] [23] [24] [25] Stonkaments ( talk) 04:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 Misinformation, and to state anything more than that a lab leak is not technically impossible is misinformation. The MEDRS sources that we have all say that it is highly unlikely, and that a zoonotic transmission in the wild is the most likely scenario. By definition, any any attempt to pretend that a lab leak is likely is misinformation. There are also claims that HIV was manufactured in a lab, and this may not be technically impossible, but all MEDRS are very clear about why there is a broad scientific consensus that HIV1 and HIV2 resulted from two separate zoonotic events when a hunter butchered a non-human primate that carried SIV in the wild, and so this is what we report. As I mentioned on the talk page of SARS-COV2, I think that part of this isa problem with understanding MEDRS, but a larger problem is trying to explain in a non-technical manner to non-experts how to evaluate evidence like an expert. Hyperion35 ( talk) 03:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello again again all! Here is an article that gives further weight to the leak theory: https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/six-essential-stories-on-the-origins-of-covid-19/ . It states that "In the spring of 2020, the so-called “lab leak” hypothesis, which many scientists now say publicly needs to be interrogated further, was often characterized as something of a conspiracy theory in news articles." I think this article still portrays the "lab leak" hypothesis as something of a conspiracy theory. Portraying the "lab leak" hypothesis as a conspiracy theory is becoming more and more misinformation in itself it seems. Nakerlund ( talk) 16:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
plausible, but unproven, which is the definition of things that we don't usually cover. Some claims about a lab leak are very clearly conspiracy theories, and several of those stories mention that the claims came from politicians who have very clear non-neutral motives. It is also worth pointing out that if the scientists mentioned in these articles had more definitive evidence, they would submit it for peer review rather than talking to journalists or writing letters to editors. Hyperion35 ( talk) 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
PolitiFact withdrew their fact check on this issue https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/ . Wikipedia should not follow media trends but then it should not have labeled the Wuhan Leak Theory misinformation in the first place either Nakerlund ( talk) 11:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
"Wikipedia should not follow media trends"← preach it! This is absolutely right and why we stick to secondary, scholarly, peer-reviewed, reputably-published, on-point sources rather than trying to track shifts in journalism. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
secondary, scholarly, peer-reviewed, reputably-published, on-point sourcesclaiming a lab leak is a conspiracy theory? Politifact editors made the following comment:
Editor’s note, May 17, 2021: When this fact-check was first published in September 2020, PolitiFact’s sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database pending a more thorough review. Currently, we consider the claim to be unsupported by evidence and in dispute. The original fact-check in its entirety is preserved below for transparency and archival purposes. Read our May 2021 report for more on the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19.. Also they have a new page on the virus origin: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/may/17/debating-origins-covid-19-virus-what-we-know-what-/ that states
Scientists who have studied the coronavirus have generally concluded that it resembles naturally occurring viruses. But researchers are paying more attention to the possibility that the virus somehow leaked from the lab, though there’s still nothing conclusive.I think this is how Wikipedia should report the lab leak hypothesis. We don't know the virus origins. A lab leak is a "possibility" not a "conspiracy theory"/"Misinformation". -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Therefore, there are discussions and unjustified theory—promoted by the US President Donald Trump—whether one of the two laboratories in Wuhan could have been the source of SARS‐CoV‐2.This section doesn't do as good a job making this distinction between plausible (but unlikely) theory and misinformation about it as it could and should. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
the WHO found that a worthy hypothesis to investigate (published later than most of our sources on misinformation), but an unlikely onedo you have an exact source for this? It could be used as a good basis to fix this. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
"The unintentional release of a bat virus theory is not misinformation or a conspiracy theory."← It could be, according to RS. Or maybe just unfounded speculation. This is an article about misinformation - so we find what good RS says about that and reflect it faithfully. Not sure why some editors want to make it more complicated. If there's a desire to write about "legitimate" ideas, find a source describing them and an article suitable for their inclusion. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Introduction through a laboratory incidentas a possible hypotheis although
In view of the above, a laboratory origin of the pandemic was considered to be extremely unlikely.
There is no record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019, or genomes that in combination could provide a SARS-CoV-2 genome.. This has lead the head of the WHO to state:
the theory that the virus might have come from a leak in a laboratory "requires further investigation, potential with additional missions involving specialist experts," Dr Tedros said on Tuesday. "Let me say clearly that as far as WHO is concerned, all hypothesis remain on the table," he added.[28]-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome [29].IMO, this is precisely why we should draw the misinformation line here, between the scientifically certain and uncertain. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I updated this section to better distinguish the legitimate science (mainstream and fringe) from the misinformation and conspiracy. While I didn't include the Science open letter, I didn't feel it fit the topic (that is, discussing misinformation about the lab). There may be room for more detail that not every dispute of the mainstream analysis of the theory is misinfo/conspiracy, but I'm not sure it's necessary compared to just pointing out the clear misinformation. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
withThough the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined
. "Origin" is too vague of a word, my proposed phrasing solves the ambiguity. Otherwise, a reader will believe animal origin is disputed, and it isn't. Forich ( talk) 02:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Though the animal source that caused the initial outbreak has not been determined, and the complete molecular history tracing the virus to a direct ancestor is still puzzling
Thanks for rewriting. In regard to this statement:
A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the lab leak theory as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence
To adhere to NPOV, propose to change to:
A WHO-China joint study team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the lab leak theory as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence
i.e. This was the conclusion of the joint study team, of whom WHO scientists only comprised half. We should also note that the report has been challenged. Either referencing the joint statement by 14 countries, or the Science letter, or Tedros' statement that a laboratory leak requires further investigation. -Unsigned comment by Cowrider
ignore the WHO Director General’s criticisms of the assessments made in the report on one of the hypothesis?1. I don't characterize the DG's statements as 'criticisms', at least not in terms of 'faults'. 2. The selective quoting of his statements regarding 'one of the hypothesis' is the POV problem, since he spent more time addressing areas the other three hypotheses needed more investigation as well.
The opening sentence in the Ivermectin section is a paraphrase of an opinion published by the New York Times, where the part relevant to ivermectin (their opinion of the mention of ivermectin at the hearing) is based on a disagreement between the presenter on ivermectin, and the opinion of the National Institutes of Health at that time. The National Institutes of Health has since gone from recommending against the use of ivermectin in the prophylaxis and early treatment of COVID-19, to being neutral on the question, and the corresponding section of COVID-19 drug repurposing research now cites that updated guidance. It probably makes sense to reframe or remove this statement, since it is based on an opinion which is then based on an expired observation. Aaron Muir Hamilton <aaron@correspondwith.me> ( talk) 01:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have time to dig into this right now but maybe someone else will. Daily Dot: Influencers asked to spread anti-vax comments by mysterious PR agency the agency was apparently a Russian (?) front and called itself Fazze. The Wall Street Journal covered it too. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I sense a frustration among some editors that two very different questions (first, is the virus origin natural or engineered; second, did it reach the human population via the laboratory or not) are conflated; so that the clear scientific consensus on the first question (that it has a natural origin) is used to close down any suggestion of credibility of the second question. I simply cannot see why we are not treating these two questions separately. With respect to all. Springnuts ( talk) 23:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Why are quote marks being placed around lab in this article. Please read MOS:QUOTEPOV. I am unable to see their purpose. In the sentences use words instead to describe what is being attempted to be said with the quote marks. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 04:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional:
- Acceptable: Siskel and Ebert called the film "unforgettable".
- Unacceptable: The site is considered "sacred" by the religion's scriptures.
- Permissible: Siskel and Ebert called the film interesting.
- Unnecessary and may imply doubt: Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting".
- Should be quoted: Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting but heart-wrenching".
I propose this sentence in the article:
is changed to
This sentence is concise and explains which of the three lab origin hypotheses is being discussed. If there is consensus to fix this sentence, then the next '"lab" origin' phrase in the article can be discussed. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 11:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I am seeing a lot of comments in the usual places about this one:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Add a section on how one of the major proponents of the mis-information regarding Ivermectin as a treatment is now also offering a 2 million dollar reward for anybody that can prove it is not an effective treatment, reference to this mis-guided mis-information prank: https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=ChannelEmail&utm_campaign=Ivermectin&utm_content=Popular%2BTrending Adriaandh ( talk) 18:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The WHO-China investigation should be labeled as such, for what it is. It is how it is reported in most media [1], on its own official report [2], and on many Wikipedia pages. User RandomCanadian removed the "China" part for no reason. Eccekevin ( talk) 02:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
From SBM here, offering some good coverage of the wingnuttery swirling around the "lab leak" narrative. Could be useful to help re-focus on misinformation (the actual topic of this article), which is otherwise drifting a bit too much into editorial musings about the topic at large. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor wishes to add in the introduction section of the lab origin section the following material:
This content is a non-neutral summary of the lab accident subsection and the references in that section. The sentence states that the lab accident idea is a conspiracy theory. This goes against the references in the section and current consensus among wikipedia editors not to treat the lab accident as a conspiracy theory. President Joe Biden and the president of the WHO have called for investigations of the possibility of a lab accident. They are not conspiracy theorists. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 10:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.This occasionally comes up when SBM gets mentioned. Basically, for biomed stuff, we'd want to cite whatever sources that the SBM article uses, but it's often a good NPOV secondary source for fringe claims, since they're often one of the few reputable sites that covers fringe claims neutrally. Neutral in this context meaning that SBM does not repeat fringe claims but rather examines them in comparison to the generally accepted scientific consensus. Hyperion35 ( talk) 22:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer Liaison Physician as well as an Associate Professor of Surgery and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University.As a quick non-policy anecdotal note on the topic, early in the year when another surgeon wrote an op-ed suggesting 'herd immunity by April', a doctor friend of mine described it as "surgeons: sometimes right, always certain". Bakkster Man ( talk) 00:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
If, as I have, you’ve been paying attention to these things for a number of years, you know that, whenever there is a major outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic of infectious disease, one conspiracy theory always—and I do mean always—arises. That conspiracy theory is that the causative microbe was developed in a laboratory and/or escaped a laboratory. HIV, H1N1, the original SARS, Ebola virus, every single one of them gave birth to such conspiracy theories. Unsurprisingly, given its global scope and death toll, so it was with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.