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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
As media sentiment shifts on the lab leak hypothesis, the editing of this article seems to be getting increasingly reactionary. A few editors' instinct seems to be just revert everything, even the addition of italics to a journal name. In a section about the lab leak possibility, there's one sentence that really sticks out: "Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility, including to stoke anti-China sentiments." The reference is this Wired article. This sentence raises a number of questions: who are these people? What's the misrepresentation? How is their anti-China motivation known? And maybe most importantly, why does it matter? This article is about misinformation, not about the motivation for misinformation. I removed the sentence, but another editor restored it, saying only "Seems apt". I then added some clarification tags, so we can at least find out what this sentence means, but the same editor reverted that too, saying "Wikipedia cannot be more specific than cited sources.". Which is kind of a hilarious thing to say: we don't know who these people are, or what they have said, but it's important for everyone to know that such people exist, and that they have said incorrect things. Can anyone justify these reverts? Should we start citing WP:OWN? Korny O'Near ( talk) 18:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I think we've established that the gain-of-function research theory is not officially considered misinformation, so that rules out Steve Bannon.I think we may need to clarify either this statement, the article text, or both. I think we agree that the WHO-evaluated theory of an inadvertent lab leak, includes the possibility of GoFR having affected the escaped virus. But simply mentioning GoFR doesn't give someone a free-pass from being described as having
misrepresented information regarding this possibility. That's what we're looking for, misinformation around an otherwise valid possibility. Which, fair point, requires a direct example before we claim it. Do we agree that misrepresenting the certainty of findings (for instance, pushing pre-prints as "proof") would fit within the current description? Do you think there's room to improve the article text to make this more clear? Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
At the assembly, Mike Ryan, director of health emergencies at the WHO, asked for less politicization of calls for an origin investigation, which have, in many ways, devolved into accusations. “Over the last number of days, we have seen more and more and more discourse in the media, with terribly little actual news, or evidence, or new material,” said Ryan. “This is disturbing.” [3]
I don't see any reason why this keeps getting removed. Of course, not everything and everyone related to virus origins misinformation is racist, but multiple sources attest that some aspects of the misinformation undeniably are linked with such attitudes - the twitter groups harassing scientists and promoting xenophobia, the Bannon et al. sinophobia, etc... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The decision is notable because it shows, once again, how social media giants struggle to strike the right balance between protecting the public from harmful misinformation and enabling robust discussion of controversial ideas...the reopening of debate presents challenging issues for Facebook because the claim has also been associated with a wave of anti-Asian sentiment.[1]
The activity follows a rise in anti-Asian misinformation last spring after the coronavirus, which first emerged in China, began spreading around the world.[2]
First, the United States must stop scapegoating China. Leaders need to stop referring to Covid-19 as the “Chinese virus”, trying to blame China for the outbreak and feeding conspiracy theories about China launching the disease on purpose. Halting this kind of rhetoric can help reduce some of the discrimination against Asian Americans that has been sparked by racist comments surrounding the virus.[3]
On Jan 24, 2020, misinformation that “Chinese passengers from Wuhan with fever slipped through the quarantine at Kansai International Airport” was disseminated through multiple social media channels.6 Although Kansai International Airport promptly denied the fact, discrimination against Chinese people has become widespread in Japan. #ChineseDon'tComeToJapan is trending on Twitter, and Chinese visitors have been tagged as dirty, insensitive, and even bioterrorists.[4]
The study says that a “hate multiverse” is exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to spread racism and other malicious agendas, focusing an initially rather diverse and incoherent set of messages into a few dominant narratives, such as blaming Jews and immigrants for starting or spreading the virus, or asserting that it is a weapon being used by the “Deep State” to control population growth (see ‘Highways of hate’).[5]
Some reactions may have roots in lack of awareness and understanding of historical events and cultural norms. The use of face masks is a prime example; the sight of East Asians wearing face masks on public transport and in communal place has caused panic and become a catalyst for rising levels of fear in some Western cities. Some of the attacks on Chinese students in the United Kingdom were reported to have been triggered by the so-called maskaphobia.[6]
Sources
|
---|
|
minimize unnecessary negative impact of disease names on trade, travel, tourism or animal welfare, and avoid causing offence to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional or ethnic groups. I'd suggest that's a pretty clear link between misinformation (namely, intentionally incorrect names) and "unnecessary negative impact", so the better we understand your objection the more likely we can reword to avoid it and reach consensus. Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Deploying patently anti-Asian rhetoric.
Well, are there any sources that say that the phrase "kung flu" is misinformation?I'd suggest we're now approaching WP:SKYBLUE territory. For the record, the lede of misinformation says
Misinformation is false, inaccurate, or misleading information that is communicated regardless of an intention to deceive. Examples of misinformation are false rumors, insults, and pranks.All three terms are being referred to by sources as 'insults' and 'misleading' (or synonyms), and "kung flu" is unambiguously also false and inaccurate (Kellyanne Conway said so as well). So yes, it's misinformation. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think an RfC would be in order if Korny O'Near wants to pursue. But all in all, I am skeptical that it would have a different outcome. This is very similar to our discussion down the page of the "bullying of scientists" line.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
As an aside, I urge every editor in this discussion to read WP:SATISFY. Consensus building does not mean unanimous support, and if a single editor needs more proof, the burden is on them to prove the inverse. Not on everyone else to satisfy that editor. If wiki worked like the UN security council (and thankfully it does not) then nothing would ever get done. It is also possible to AGF without satisfying the intricate demands of one editor. I'm not trying to upset anyone here, just saying it can be a waste of time (and it takes a lot of effort) to track down endless quotations to prove a point that a consensus of people already accept to be true based on the currently available evidence.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Result was overwhelmingly "Support." This was relatively uncontroversial, hatting per WP:SNOWBALL after 6 days stale. If the coverage in WP:RS massively changes, we can revisit. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Examples include:
Also a direct quote from our article: "A Cornell University study of 38 million articles in English-language media around the world found that US President Donald Trump was the single largest driver of the misinformation." [14] [15] So, plainly, I think this page deserves to have that category. Thoughts?-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
|
I've been working on this section to clarify that there are no spike proteins in the vaccines. The question has come up whether or not we can use wikivoice to say "spike proteins are not cytotoxic." I think we need to quote an expert saying something to the effect of "the current scientific consensus is that COVID vaccines do not have a cytotoxic effect" or as I had it before "Anna Durbin, Professor of International Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Reuters via email that the spike itself is not cytotoxic." The source has this also good sentence "There is no proof that spike proteins created in response to mRNA vaccines are harmful to the body, scientists have told Reuters." I'm not sure how to say any of this without COPYVIO, so I think a quote is fine. The word toxic is a favorite tool of pseudoscience, because pretty much everything is toxic in the right dose and context. Especially hard is "cytotoxic" which usually means you bathe some disembodied cells in something, and that is almost always bad for the cells. That's why the Reuters author said "to the human body". So we need a sentence like "there is no evidence of cytotoxicity resulting from COVID vaccines." Do the current sources support that sentence? Or should we stick with a quote? [1] [2] DolyaIskrina ( talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Interesting source here about links between conservative media in the United States and beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories. But I'm not sure where this could fit in with the current structure of the article. Any thoughts? (ping Alexbrn). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are not supposed to force a conclusion upon a reader, hence labeling one thing or another a "misinformation" should not be something we, as Wikipedia editors, allow ourselves so easily. It must be left to the reader to decide whether something is a misinformation or not - otherwise what we are doing here is nothing but opinion journalism, which, let me remind you, simply goes against the Wikipedia guidelines. I would allow myself to say that the very existence of such "journalistic" articles on Wikipedia is disgraceful to the editorial community and something that must be fixed as soon as possible, because otherwise, with the current pace, we risk becoming a fully established propaganda platform sooner rather than later.
If deletion of the article is perceived as a non-option by the editors, a massive rewrite based on the principle of avoiding the word "misinformation" would have to be done in order to bring the article to a somewhat saner form. Ideally, the article should present the reader with nothing but a list of conflicting opinions and references to these opinions - only then the content of this article could be considered encyclopedic. --
Nicholas Velasquez (
talk)
14:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
force a conclusion upon a reader? What about Misinformation related to vaccination?
Moving this from @ Shibbolethink:'s talk page.
Why is "Testimony of former Admiral Giroir to the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis" UNDUE? The guy was a highly placed government official. If you go down that path anything and everything can be arbitrarily deleted as UNDUE just because you don't like that side. JS ( talk) 07:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Now we have an Stanford professor and microbiologist David Relman saying lab-leak hypotheses are "absolutely legitimate" and are "plausible." Relman said the Wuhan lab housed a vast library of bat coronaviruses, including specimens from the caves.
"They weren't just studying these viruses. They were actually collecting samples from nature in the largest number with the greatest diversity of almost any place on the planet," he said.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-wuhan-lab-leak-theory/
If Relman's opinions are added, will that also be deleted as UNDUE? This article is a disgrace.
JS ( talk) 18:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Propose adding:
Despite the lack of FDA approval for COVID-19 treatment, an increase in off-label ivermectin prescriptions occurred in the US [1] following widespread media coverage of the drug. "During March 16, 2019–April 2, 2021, national estimates of ivermectin dispensed from outpatient retail pharmacies increased from an average of 3589 prescriptions per week at the pre-pandemic baseline to a peak of 39,102 prescriptions in the week ending on January 8, 2021 (989% relative percent increase)" [2] Caprilyc ( talk) 02:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Is it the consensus the article provides an adequate distinction between an accidental leak during research and a deliberately engineered and leaked bioweapon? I certainly sense the distinction is being blurred by some in the political sphere. The former is considerably less sinister than the latter. soibangla ( talk) 01:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The line between plausible theories and misinformation/false is really blurred in this article Tisthefirstletter ( talk) 05:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to add Vernon Coleman in the 'see also' section. MrEarlGray ( talk) 15:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
"Sensor is inert, not a microchip, The Facebook post gets several details wrong." - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/22/fact-check-post-botches-details-implant-detecting-covid-19/7299081002/
60 minutes interview: Dr. Matt Hepburn: "It's not some dreaded government microchip to track your every move, but a tissue-like gel engineered to continuously test your blood." - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/last-pandemic-science-military-60-minutes-2021-04-11/
-- Bawanio ( talk) 03:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
If useful: Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment ( press release) Mapsax ( talk) 23:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I hope some of this is useful.
Great work, useful idiots of the media: Most Americans buy the unsubstantiated "lab leak" theory. https://www.salon.com/2021/07/09/great-work-useful-idiots-of-the-media-most-americans-buy-the-unsubstantiated-lab-leak-theory/
The ‘Occam’s Razor Argument’ Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak. https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/07/16/lab-leak-evidence/
Summary of January 7 2021 AVP Panel Discussion http://downloads.vanityfair.com/lab-leak-theory/1821COVIDemail.pdf
COVID-19-related dermatosis in November 2019: could this case be Italy’s patient zero? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjd.19804 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348373327_COVID-19_related_dermatosis_in_November_2019_Could_this_case_be_Italy%27s_patient_zero
Clues to Covid-19’s Origins Include Anonymous Skin Sample in Italy. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-origin-italy-11626028854
18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Dalek Supreme X ( talk)
There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed Forich ( talk) 23:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
A suggestion for an important addition to paragraph 3 : PCR testing Please advise on formatting and relevancy. This would require subheadings: 3.1 PCR tests can't detect infection (the current paragraph) 3.2 PCR tests produce false positives (my contribution)
In November 2020 a group of 22 scientists called the "International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS)", led by Pieter Borger and Ulrike Kämmerer, published a review report online[1] on one of the first RT-PCR test protocols for SARS-CoV-2 developed by the team of German virologist Christian Drosten[2] and submitted it to the journal Eurosurveillance that had published this protocol in January 2020. According to its main author, the online report received millions of visitors. It was widely circulated among lockdown skeptics and in the conspiracy media, but was virtually ignored in the mainstream press. The group claimed to have found 10 major design errors and conflicts of interest and demanded a retraction of the Drosten paper. The reasoning behind this project was that a faulty PCR protocol generates many false positives, and thus a "casedemic", and the Drosten protocol was still widely used across the world, thus legitimizing disproportional lockdown measures. After an external review process the journal decided that "the criteria for a retraction of the article have not been fulfilled."[3] Several molecular scientists have criticized the ICSLS review report for being, in the words of German virologist Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, "the usual mix of truth, opinion and falsehoods".[4] Virologist Ian Mackay concluded that it is more appropriate to investigate what PCR test designs are in use in other areas of the world, instead of focussing on just one research group.[5] Molecular biologist prof. Andreas Beyer concluded in an extensive 2-part review: "The Borger-Kämmerer text is pseudoscience, it is full of misconceptions, errors and flaws. Therefore it is ignored by experts for good reason."[6] The Eurosurveillance response concluded: "With more data and evolving knowledge, laboratories have since further improved the initial method, as per usual practice."[7]
[1] Pieter Borger et. al., "Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020", External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results, November 27, 2020, https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/.
[2] Victor M Corman et. al., "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR", PMC, (Euro Surveillance, 2020 Jan 23), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/.
[3] Eurosurveillance editorial team, "Response to retraction request and allegations of misconduct and scientific flaws", Eurosurveillance, Volume 26, Issue 5, 04/Feb/2021, https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041.
[4] Birgit Herden, "Härte kann man nicht immer einfach mit Wirksamkeit gleichsetzen", Welt, December 8, 2020. Quoted in: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy, Part 20, PCR-Gate: A Storm in a Petri Dish?, http://www.integralworld.net/visser194.html, Dec. 24, 2020.
[5] Ian M. Mackay on Twitter, Dec. 12, 2020. https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1337618320179150848?s=20, Quoted in: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy, Part 20, PCR-Gate: A Storm in a Petri Dish?, http://www.integralworld.net/visser194.html, Dec. 24, 2020.
[6] Andreas Beyer, "Borger & Kämmerer, Corona & qPCR, Pseudoscience & Conspiracy Theory Revisited - an Analytical Essay", Researchgate, May 2021. Quoted in: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy, Part 24, PCR-Gate 2: When Lockdown Skeptics Pose as Expert Scientists, http://www.integralworld.net/visser198.html, Feb. 9, 2021.
[7] Eurosurveillance editorial team, "Response to retraction request and allegations of misconduct and scientific flaws", Eurosurveillance, Volume 26, Issue 5, 04/Feb/2021, https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041.
FrankVisser101 ( talk) 09:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I created Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus) and filled it with some common recurring discussions. Thoughts welcome, as well as additions/tweaks to ensure it is complete and accurately summarises the discussions linked. Hopefully it helps prevent the constant, very long discussions that keep rehashing the same issues (such as the Segreto papers), or at least provides a convenient link to past discussions on the issue so we're not starting from scratch each time. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)which in general can confuse a reader. I propose we change it to
There is consensus that the lab leak theory can not be treated solely as "minority scientific viewpoint" but instead requires in some cases to be treated less favorably.. Followed by a proper explanation that summarizes how we reached that consensus (I prefer we redact one instead of directing to some wall of text RFC) Forich ( talk) 02:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Please read it again and reconsider my proposal to simplify the consensus to "not label lab leak hypothesis as a minority but scientific viewpoint", which is easier to enforce than "no consensus on no label", because it put the onus on the minority position to earn its way to being labeled scientific. I admit that by the last phrase of the quoted closure, this RFC may be outdated. Forich ( talk) 04:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)There is no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a "conspiracy theory" or if it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". Editors who commented in the discussion noted concerns over false balance, the in-article weighting of viewpoints that depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views, and the coverage of the hypothesis provided by reliable medical sources. Editors noted that fringe theories and pseudoscience should not be described in the same way as mainstream viewpoints are, though there was no consensus that the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a fringe theory or pseudoscience. Many editors that support calling the hypothesis a "minority, but scientific viewpoint" noted that the hypothesis is falsifiable and has been referenced in reliable medical sources. Many editors that support calling the hypothesis a "conspiracy theory" noted the political aspects associated with the acceptance of the hypothesis, as well as the general majority view annunciated by WP:MEDRS that rejects the hypothesis. Not all editors seem to believe that the issue is one that can be reduced to a binary choice between the hypothesis being a "conspiracy theory" and a "minority, but scientific viewpoint"; some editors noted that there is a conspiracy theory surrounding the hypothesis that is distinct from the hypothesis itself... Numerically, there were marginally more editors (1) that appeared to support calling the hypothesis a "minority, but scientific viewpoint" rather than a "conspiracy theory", by my count. Consensus, however, is not the result of a vote, but is instead ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The arguments made, in light of Wikipedia policy, appear to be of fairly even quality... And, especially as this is a rapidly developing topic, it is salient to remember that consensus can change and that editors should not hesitate to create new discussions in response to the publication of substantial new information that is relevant to the topic of this RfC.
The review on ivermectin by Kory et al. that was provisionally published in Frontiers in Pharmacology before removal is apparently the same that was subsequently published in The American Journal of Therapeutics (per The Scientist). I'm not here to defend the merits of either paper, nor do I know what if anything has changed between manuscripts, but I wonder now how much emphasis Wikipedia should give to this particular study. It's an incomplete (and thus misleading) picture to only mention it was removed by one journal, but not mention its acceptance by another. Has there been subsequent criticism? Does it still even qualify as "misinformation"? Are we going to pit the editorial decisions of Frontiers against the AJT's? Does it warrant meticulous exposition and singling out, or could it perhaps be mentioned in passing as one of several studies that have low support and/or been widely/prematurely misused? The Ivermectin section is already one of the most verbose of this article, and some condensation is likely warranted. And please, pre-emptively, do not mistake my good faith attempt to discuss this issue, in the goal of ultimately making a better encyclopedia article, with defense or promotion of any organization, person, or medication. --Animalparty! ( talk) 21:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I refer to this edit: [9].
I had previously flagged the sentence and reference in question in accordance with Template:Failed verification, @ RandomCanadian, has simply reverted my edit to remove the tag (without any discussion nor notification, I might add), yet the issue remains that the sentence "Misinformation and confusion about the weight of evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread." does not have a WP:MEDRS let alone a WP:RS.
My suggestion is to delete this sentence entirely unless a WP:RS is found, the current reference is not reliable and independent failed verification. Aeonx ( talk) 05:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Firm disagree. I think this is a very verifiable statement, including to the original source. Here are some more WP:RSes which describe this phenomenon:
Secondary reviews in the scientific literature
|
---|
Hakim (the original source): [13]
Frutos et al.: [14]
|
Journalistic sources
|
---|
This article from Snopes: [15]
This article from Slate: [16]
This other article from Slate: [17]
This article from the APA Monitor: [18]
This article from the Associated Press: [19]
This poll from Politico: [20]
|
Primary research articles
|
---|
This study from Cornell researchers on the "infodemic" (not peer-reviewed but cited by news agencies): [21] [22]
This study from Reyes et al. published in PLoS One: [23]
|
Opinion pieces written by scientists
|
---|
Srinivasapuram Krishnaswamy, writing in The Hindu: [24]
Polly Hayes, writing in The Conversation: [25]
Peter Knight, writing in The Conversation: [26]
|
Based on these sources, it is fair to conclude that misunderstanding/misinformation about the zoonotic origins and its likelihood are widespread, given that scholars/scientists set the tone for what is "true" in Wikipedia's eyes, but the public perception has been swayed towards the likelihood of a lab leak. This is a fair summary of these sources.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Propose addition of "Delta variant created by COVID-19 vaccines" under "Vaccines", as noted below:
As the delta variant of COVID-19 began to spread globally, disinformation campaigns seized on the idea that COVID-19 vaccines had caused the delta variant, despite the fact that the vaccines cannot replicate the virus. [1] A French virologist likewise falsely claimed that antibodies from vaccines had created and strengthened COVID-19 variants through a previously debunked theory of Antibody-dependent Enhancement. [2]
A related theory, out of India, claimed that COVID-19 vaccines were lowering people's ability to withstand new variants instead of boosting immunity. [3]
Sources
|
---|
|
This is a talk (if it will be included, an informal edit request) I'm making, as ― even without the fact that I don't have extended-confirmed access ― I don't know yet how I would properly put this on the article.
I am asking whether the following would be worth including in the article (I don't know whether it's too indiscriminate or not):
Basically, misinformation in the Philippines has circulated over how, supposedly, those who wouldn't be vaccinated would not receive "ayuda" (basically aid, in this case financial.) Large crowds of thousands of people rushed to some vaccination sites in Metro Manila and in Antipolo, Rizal, which was linked to the misinformation stated above. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Thanks! Caehlla2357 ( talk) 08:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Hello, I just created a stub article for Fazze, an influencer marketing agency that was behind a multi country online COVID-19 disinformation campaign. Any help would would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 16:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lab leak theory on the origin of COVID-19 be treated and described as a:
Consider cleanup? Many of these are minor. 26zhangi ( talk) 19:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian published an interesting article this week that somebody [else!] may consider worth a mention in the article? [1] The essence is that Russia and China have been creating false stories deliberately, as a form of infowar. I don't know enough about the topic to evaluate its importance or its value to the article. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
References
On August 26, 2021 Japan reported finding contamination in some unused Moderna vaccines. They also stated the contamination reacted to a magnet and may be metal. This is relevant to the claims of magnetic attraction to injections sites. YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 07:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
We will have to wait until the results of the investigation. But if they found magnetic material inside vaccine vials, this questions if those with magnetic injection sites also had contamination in their injection. YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 10:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
It's unclear if medical journals will step into physics, and confirm if magnetic material can attract a magnet. We will have to wait and see. YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
In August 2021, it was revealed the Sinovac vaccine carries a risk of Bell's palsy:
"A recent study conducted by investigators from the Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research at the University of Hong Kong, in collaboration with the School of Nursing, has found that there is an increased risk of Bell’s Palsy after the administration of the CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine." YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 08:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
It was published in a medical journal: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00451-5/fulltext YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 10:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
From the interpretation section: "Our findings suggest an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy after CoronaVac vaccination." YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 10:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
And from the papers abstract:
"the findings from Eric Wan and colleagues' study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases showed an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy after immunisation with CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech), a vaccine that uses the inactivated virus." YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 11:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Claims have been circulated on social media that the Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine (active ingredient tozinameran) causes Bell's palsy.The cited primary study refers to CoronaVac inactivated viral particle vaccine, not the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine. So this study doesn't apply to the page as written. Bakkster Man ( talk) 12:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I write this post in a neutral manner:
This month Canada has updated the warning label for the Pfizer vaccine and it now includes Bell's Palsy: https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2021/76203a-eng.php
The updated drug info is available at:
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
And page 21 says: "Post-Market Adverse Reactions The following adverse reactions have been identified during post authorization use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Cardiac disorders: myocarditis and/or pericarditis (see WARNING AND PRECAUTIONS section) Immune System Disorders: severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, and other hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash, pruritus, urticaria, angioedema) Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue Disorders: pain in extremity (arm) Nervous System Disorders: Facial paralysis / Bell’s Palsy" YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Source #441 cites Quillette. This is not considered a reliable source, please remove it. TWM03 ( talk) 22:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
As media sentiment shifts on the lab leak hypothesis, the editing of this article seems to be getting increasingly reactionary. A few editors' instinct seems to be just revert everything, even the addition of italics to a journal name. In a section about the lab leak possibility, there's one sentence that really sticks out: "Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility, including to stoke anti-China sentiments." The reference is this Wired article. This sentence raises a number of questions: who are these people? What's the misrepresentation? How is their anti-China motivation known? And maybe most importantly, why does it matter? This article is about misinformation, not about the motivation for misinformation. I removed the sentence, but another editor restored it, saying only "Seems apt". I then added some clarification tags, so we can at least find out what this sentence means, but the same editor reverted that too, saying "Wikipedia cannot be more specific than cited sources.". Which is kind of a hilarious thing to say: we don't know who these people are, or what they have said, but it's important for everyone to know that such people exist, and that they have said incorrect things. Can anyone justify these reverts? Should we start citing WP:OWN? Korny O'Near ( talk) 18:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I think we've established that the gain-of-function research theory is not officially considered misinformation, so that rules out Steve Bannon.I think we may need to clarify either this statement, the article text, or both. I think we agree that the WHO-evaluated theory of an inadvertent lab leak, includes the possibility of GoFR having affected the escaped virus. But simply mentioning GoFR doesn't give someone a free-pass from being described as having
misrepresented information regarding this possibility. That's what we're looking for, misinformation around an otherwise valid possibility. Which, fair point, requires a direct example before we claim it. Do we agree that misrepresenting the certainty of findings (for instance, pushing pre-prints as "proof") would fit within the current description? Do you think there's room to improve the article text to make this more clear? Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
At the assembly, Mike Ryan, director of health emergencies at the WHO, asked for less politicization of calls for an origin investigation, which have, in many ways, devolved into accusations. “Over the last number of days, we have seen more and more and more discourse in the media, with terribly little actual news, or evidence, or new material,” said Ryan. “This is disturbing.” [3]
I don't see any reason why this keeps getting removed. Of course, not everything and everyone related to virus origins misinformation is racist, but multiple sources attest that some aspects of the misinformation undeniably are linked with such attitudes - the twitter groups harassing scientists and promoting xenophobia, the Bannon et al. sinophobia, etc... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The decision is notable because it shows, once again, how social media giants struggle to strike the right balance between protecting the public from harmful misinformation and enabling robust discussion of controversial ideas...the reopening of debate presents challenging issues for Facebook because the claim has also been associated with a wave of anti-Asian sentiment.[1]
The activity follows a rise in anti-Asian misinformation last spring after the coronavirus, which first emerged in China, began spreading around the world.[2]
First, the United States must stop scapegoating China. Leaders need to stop referring to Covid-19 as the “Chinese virus”, trying to blame China for the outbreak and feeding conspiracy theories about China launching the disease on purpose. Halting this kind of rhetoric can help reduce some of the discrimination against Asian Americans that has been sparked by racist comments surrounding the virus.[3]
On Jan 24, 2020, misinformation that “Chinese passengers from Wuhan with fever slipped through the quarantine at Kansai International Airport” was disseminated through multiple social media channels.6 Although Kansai International Airport promptly denied the fact, discrimination against Chinese people has become widespread in Japan. #ChineseDon'tComeToJapan is trending on Twitter, and Chinese visitors have been tagged as dirty, insensitive, and even bioterrorists.[4]
The study says that a “hate multiverse” is exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to spread racism and other malicious agendas, focusing an initially rather diverse and incoherent set of messages into a few dominant narratives, such as blaming Jews and immigrants for starting or spreading the virus, or asserting that it is a weapon being used by the “Deep State” to control population growth (see ‘Highways of hate’).[5]
Some reactions may have roots in lack of awareness and understanding of historical events and cultural norms. The use of face masks is a prime example; the sight of East Asians wearing face masks on public transport and in communal place has caused panic and become a catalyst for rising levels of fear in some Western cities. Some of the attacks on Chinese students in the United Kingdom were reported to have been triggered by the so-called maskaphobia.[6]
Sources
|
---|
|
minimize unnecessary negative impact of disease names on trade, travel, tourism or animal welfare, and avoid causing offence to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional or ethnic groups. I'd suggest that's a pretty clear link between misinformation (namely, intentionally incorrect names) and "unnecessary negative impact", so the better we understand your objection the more likely we can reword to avoid it and reach consensus. Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Deploying patently anti-Asian rhetoric.
Well, are there any sources that say that the phrase "kung flu" is misinformation?I'd suggest we're now approaching WP:SKYBLUE territory. For the record, the lede of misinformation says
Misinformation is false, inaccurate, or misleading information that is communicated regardless of an intention to deceive. Examples of misinformation are false rumors, insults, and pranks.All three terms are being referred to by sources as 'insults' and 'misleading' (or synonyms), and "kung flu" is unambiguously also false and inaccurate (Kellyanne Conway said so as well). So yes, it's misinformation. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think an RfC would be in order if Korny O'Near wants to pursue. But all in all, I am skeptical that it would have a different outcome. This is very similar to our discussion down the page of the "bullying of scientists" line.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
As an aside, I urge every editor in this discussion to read WP:SATISFY. Consensus building does not mean unanimous support, and if a single editor needs more proof, the burden is on them to prove the inverse. Not on everyone else to satisfy that editor. If wiki worked like the UN security council (and thankfully it does not) then nothing would ever get done. It is also possible to AGF without satisfying the intricate demands of one editor. I'm not trying to upset anyone here, just saying it can be a waste of time (and it takes a lot of effort) to track down endless quotations to prove a point that a consensus of people already accept to be true based on the currently available evidence.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Result was overwhelmingly "Support." This was relatively uncontroversial, hatting per WP:SNOWBALL after 6 days stale. If the coverage in WP:RS massively changes, we can revisit. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Examples include:
Also a direct quote from our article: "A Cornell University study of 38 million articles in English-language media around the world found that US President Donald Trump was the single largest driver of the misinformation." [14] [15] So, plainly, I think this page deserves to have that category. Thoughts?-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
|
I've been working on this section to clarify that there are no spike proteins in the vaccines. The question has come up whether or not we can use wikivoice to say "spike proteins are not cytotoxic." I think we need to quote an expert saying something to the effect of "the current scientific consensus is that COVID vaccines do not have a cytotoxic effect" or as I had it before "Anna Durbin, Professor of International Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Reuters via email that the spike itself is not cytotoxic." The source has this also good sentence "There is no proof that spike proteins created in response to mRNA vaccines are harmful to the body, scientists have told Reuters." I'm not sure how to say any of this without COPYVIO, so I think a quote is fine. The word toxic is a favorite tool of pseudoscience, because pretty much everything is toxic in the right dose and context. Especially hard is "cytotoxic" which usually means you bathe some disembodied cells in something, and that is almost always bad for the cells. That's why the Reuters author said "to the human body". So we need a sentence like "there is no evidence of cytotoxicity resulting from COVID vaccines." Do the current sources support that sentence? Or should we stick with a quote? [1] [2] DolyaIskrina ( talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Interesting source here about links between conservative media in the United States and beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories. But I'm not sure where this could fit in with the current structure of the article. Any thoughts? (ping Alexbrn). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are not supposed to force a conclusion upon a reader, hence labeling one thing or another a "misinformation" should not be something we, as Wikipedia editors, allow ourselves so easily. It must be left to the reader to decide whether something is a misinformation or not - otherwise what we are doing here is nothing but opinion journalism, which, let me remind you, simply goes against the Wikipedia guidelines. I would allow myself to say that the very existence of such "journalistic" articles on Wikipedia is disgraceful to the editorial community and something that must be fixed as soon as possible, because otherwise, with the current pace, we risk becoming a fully established propaganda platform sooner rather than later.
If deletion of the article is perceived as a non-option by the editors, a massive rewrite based on the principle of avoiding the word "misinformation" would have to be done in order to bring the article to a somewhat saner form. Ideally, the article should present the reader with nothing but a list of conflicting opinions and references to these opinions - only then the content of this article could be considered encyclopedic. --
Nicholas Velasquez (
talk)
14:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
force a conclusion upon a reader? What about Misinformation related to vaccination?
Moving this from @ Shibbolethink:'s talk page.
Why is "Testimony of former Admiral Giroir to the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis" UNDUE? The guy was a highly placed government official. If you go down that path anything and everything can be arbitrarily deleted as UNDUE just because you don't like that side. JS ( talk) 07:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Now we have an Stanford professor and microbiologist David Relman saying lab-leak hypotheses are "absolutely legitimate" and are "plausible." Relman said the Wuhan lab housed a vast library of bat coronaviruses, including specimens from the caves.
"They weren't just studying these viruses. They were actually collecting samples from nature in the largest number with the greatest diversity of almost any place on the planet," he said.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-wuhan-lab-leak-theory/
If Relman's opinions are added, will that also be deleted as UNDUE? This article is a disgrace.
JS ( talk) 18:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Propose adding:
Despite the lack of FDA approval for COVID-19 treatment, an increase in off-label ivermectin prescriptions occurred in the US [1] following widespread media coverage of the drug. "During March 16, 2019–April 2, 2021, national estimates of ivermectin dispensed from outpatient retail pharmacies increased from an average of 3589 prescriptions per week at the pre-pandemic baseline to a peak of 39,102 prescriptions in the week ending on January 8, 2021 (989% relative percent increase)" [2] Caprilyc ( talk) 02:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Is it the consensus the article provides an adequate distinction between an accidental leak during research and a deliberately engineered and leaked bioweapon? I certainly sense the distinction is being blurred by some in the political sphere. The former is considerably less sinister than the latter. soibangla ( talk) 01:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The line between plausible theories and misinformation/false is really blurred in this article Tisthefirstletter ( talk) 05:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to add Vernon Coleman in the 'see also' section. MrEarlGray ( talk) 15:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
"Sensor is inert, not a microchip, The Facebook post gets several details wrong." - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/22/fact-check-post-botches-details-implant-detecting-covid-19/7299081002/
60 minutes interview: Dr. Matt Hepburn: "It's not some dreaded government microchip to track your every move, but a tissue-like gel engineered to continuously test your blood." - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/last-pandemic-science-military-60-minutes-2021-04-11/
-- Bawanio ( talk) 03:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
If useful: Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment ( press release) Mapsax ( talk) 23:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I hope some of this is useful.
Great work, useful idiots of the media: Most Americans buy the unsubstantiated "lab leak" theory. https://www.salon.com/2021/07/09/great-work-useful-idiots-of-the-media-most-americans-buy-the-unsubstantiated-lab-leak-theory/
The ‘Occam’s Razor Argument’ Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak. https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/07/16/lab-leak-evidence/
Summary of January 7 2021 AVP Panel Discussion http://downloads.vanityfair.com/lab-leak-theory/1821COVIDemail.pdf
COVID-19-related dermatosis in November 2019: could this case be Italy’s patient zero? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjd.19804 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348373327_COVID-19_related_dermatosis_in_November_2019_Could_this_case_be_Italy%27s_patient_zero
Clues to Covid-19’s Origins Include Anonymous Skin Sample in Italy. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-origin-italy-11626028854
18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Dalek Supreme X ( talk)
There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed Forich ( talk) 23:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
A suggestion for an important addition to paragraph 3 : PCR testing Please advise on formatting and relevancy. This would require subheadings: 3.1 PCR tests can't detect infection (the current paragraph) 3.2 PCR tests produce false positives (my contribution)
In November 2020 a group of 22 scientists called the "International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS)", led by Pieter Borger and Ulrike Kämmerer, published a review report online[1] on one of the first RT-PCR test protocols for SARS-CoV-2 developed by the team of German virologist Christian Drosten[2] and submitted it to the journal Eurosurveillance that had published this protocol in January 2020. According to its main author, the online report received millions of visitors. It was widely circulated among lockdown skeptics and in the conspiracy media, but was virtually ignored in the mainstream press. The group claimed to have found 10 major design errors and conflicts of interest and demanded a retraction of the Drosten paper. The reasoning behind this project was that a faulty PCR protocol generates many false positives, and thus a "casedemic", and the Drosten protocol was still widely used across the world, thus legitimizing disproportional lockdown measures. After an external review process the journal decided that "the criteria for a retraction of the article have not been fulfilled."[3] Several molecular scientists have criticized the ICSLS review report for being, in the words of German virologist Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, "the usual mix of truth, opinion and falsehoods".[4] Virologist Ian Mackay concluded that it is more appropriate to investigate what PCR test designs are in use in other areas of the world, instead of focussing on just one research group.[5] Molecular biologist prof. Andreas Beyer concluded in an extensive 2-part review: "The Borger-Kämmerer text is pseudoscience, it is full of misconceptions, errors and flaws. Therefore it is ignored by experts for good reason."[6] The Eurosurveillance response concluded: "With more data and evolving knowledge, laboratories have since further improved the initial method, as per usual practice."[7]
[1] Pieter Borger et. al., "Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020", External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results, November 27, 2020, https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/.
[2] Victor M Corman et. al., "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR", PMC, (Euro Surveillance, 2020 Jan 23), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/.
[3] Eurosurveillance editorial team, "Response to retraction request and allegations of misconduct and scientific flaws", Eurosurveillance, Volume 26, Issue 5, 04/Feb/2021, https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041.
[4] Birgit Herden, "Härte kann man nicht immer einfach mit Wirksamkeit gleichsetzen", Welt, December 8, 2020. Quoted in: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy, Part 20, PCR-Gate: A Storm in a Petri Dish?, http://www.integralworld.net/visser194.html, Dec. 24, 2020.
[5] Ian M. Mackay on Twitter, Dec. 12, 2020. https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1337618320179150848?s=20, Quoted in: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy, Part 20, PCR-Gate: A Storm in a Petri Dish?, http://www.integralworld.net/visser194.html, Dec. 24, 2020.
[6] Andreas Beyer, "Borger & Kämmerer, Corona & qPCR, Pseudoscience & Conspiracy Theory Revisited - an Analytical Essay", Researchgate, May 2021. Quoted in: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy, Part 24, PCR-Gate 2: When Lockdown Skeptics Pose as Expert Scientists, http://www.integralworld.net/visser198.html, Feb. 9, 2021.
[7] Eurosurveillance editorial team, "Response to retraction request and allegations of misconduct and scientific flaws", Eurosurveillance, Volume 26, Issue 5, 04/Feb/2021, https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041.
FrankVisser101 ( talk) 09:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I created Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus) and filled it with some common recurring discussions. Thoughts welcome, as well as additions/tweaks to ensure it is complete and accurately summarises the discussions linked. Hopefully it helps prevent the constant, very long discussions that keep rehashing the same issues (such as the Segreto papers), or at least provides a convenient link to past discussions on the issue so we're not starting from scratch each time. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)which in general can confuse a reader. I propose we change it to
There is consensus that the lab leak theory can not be treated solely as "minority scientific viewpoint" but instead requires in some cases to be treated less favorably.. Followed by a proper explanation that summarizes how we reached that consensus (I prefer we redact one instead of directing to some wall of text RFC) Forich ( talk) 02:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Please read it again and reconsider my proposal to simplify the consensus to "not label lab leak hypothesis as a minority but scientific viewpoint", which is easier to enforce than "no consensus on no label", because it put the onus on the minority position to earn its way to being labeled scientific. I admit that by the last phrase of the quoted closure, this RFC may be outdated. Forich ( talk) 04:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)There is no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a "conspiracy theory" or if it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". Editors who commented in the discussion noted concerns over false balance, the in-article weighting of viewpoints that depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views, and the coverage of the hypothesis provided by reliable medical sources. Editors noted that fringe theories and pseudoscience should not be described in the same way as mainstream viewpoints are, though there was no consensus that the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a fringe theory or pseudoscience. Many editors that support calling the hypothesis a "minority, but scientific viewpoint" noted that the hypothesis is falsifiable and has been referenced in reliable medical sources. Many editors that support calling the hypothesis a "conspiracy theory" noted the political aspects associated with the acceptance of the hypothesis, as well as the general majority view annunciated by WP:MEDRS that rejects the hypothesis. Not all editors seem to believe that the issue is one that can be reduced to a binary choice between the hypothesis being a "conspiracy theory" and a "minority, but scientific viewpoint"; some editors noted that there is a conspiracy theory surrounding the hypothesis that is distinct from the hypothesis itself... Numerically, there were marginally more editors (1) that appeared to support calling the hypothesis a "minority, but scientific viewpoint" rather than a "conspiracy theory", by my count. Consensus, however, is not the result of a vote, but is instead ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The arguments made, in light of Wikipedia policy, appear to be of fairly even quality... And, especially as this is a rapidly developing topic, it is salient to remember that consensus can change and that editors should not hesitate to create new discussions in response to the publication of substantial new information that is relevant to the topic of this RfC.
The review on ivermectin by Kory et al. that was provisionally published in Frontiers in Pharmacology before removal is apparently the same that was subsequently published in The American Journal of Therapeutics (per The Scientist). I'm not here to defend the merits of either paper, nor do I know what if anything has changed between manuscripts, but I wonder now how much emphasis Wikipedia should give to this particular study. It's an incomplete (and thus misleading) picture to only mention it was removed by one journal, but not mention its acceptance by another. Has there been subsequent criticism? Does it still even qualify as "misinformation"? Are we going to pit the editorial decisions of Frontiers against the AJT's? Does it warrant meticulous exposition and singling out, or could it perhaps be mentioned in passing as one of several studies that have low support and/or been widely/prematurely misused? The Ivermectin section is already one of the most verbose of this article, and some condensation is likely warranted. And please, pre-emptively, do not mistake my good faith attempt to discuss this issue, in the goal of ultimately making a better encyclopedia article, with defense or promotion of any organization, person, or medication. --Animalparty! ( talk) 21:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I refer to this edit: [9].
I had previously flagged the sentence and reference in question in accordance with Template:Failed verification, @ RandomCanadian, has simply reverted my edit to remove the tag (without any discussion nor notification, I might add), yet the issue remains that the sentence "Misinformation and confusion about the weight of evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread." does not have a WP:MEDRS let alone a WP:RS.
My suggestion is to delete this sentence entirely unless a WP:RS is found, the current reference is not reliable and independent failed verification. Aeonx ( talk) 05:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Firm disagree. I think this is a very verifiable statement, including to the original source. Here are some more WP:RSes which describe this phenomenon:
Secondary reviews in the scientific literature
|
---|
Hakim (the original source): [13]
Frutos et al.: [14]
|
Journalistic sources
|
---|
This article from Snopes: [15]
This article from Slate: [16]
This other article from Slate: [17]
This article from the APA Monitor: [18]
This article from the Associated Press: [19]
This poll from Politico: [20]
|
Primary research articles
|
---|
This study from Cornell researchers on the "infodemic" (not peer-reviewed but cited by news agencies): [21] [22]
This study from Reyes et al. published in PLoS One: [23]
|
Opinion pieces written by scientists
|
---|
Srinivasapuram Krishnaswamy, writing in The Hindu: [24]
Polly Hayes, writing in The Conversation: [25]
Peter Knight, writing in The Conversation: [26]
|
Based on these sources, it is fair to conclude that misunderstanding/misinformation about the zoonotic origins and its likelihood are widespread, given that scholars/scientists set the tone for what is "true" in Wikipedia's eyes, but the public perception has been swayed towards the likelihood of a lab leak. This is a fair summary of these sources.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Propose addition of "Delta variant created by COVID-19 vaccines" under "Vaccines", as noted below:
As the delta variant of COVID-19 began to spread globally, disinformation campaigns seized on the idea that COVID-19 vaccines had caused the delta variant, despite the fact that the vaccines cannot replicate the virus. [1] A French virologist likewise falsely claimed that antibodies from vaccines had created and strengthened COVID-19 variants through a previously debunked theory of Antibody-dependent Enhancement. [2]
A related theory, out of India, claimed that COVID-19 vaccines were lowering people's ability to withstand new variants instead of boosting immunity. [3]
Sources
|
---|
|
This is a talk (if it will be included, an informal edit request) I'm making, as ― even without the fact that I don't have extended-confirmed access ― I don't know yet how I would properly put this on the article.
I am asking whether the following would be worth including in the article (I don't know whether it's too indiscriminate or not):
Basically, misinformation in the Philippines has circulated over how, supposedly, those who wouldn't be vaccinated would not receive "ayuda" (basically aid, in this case financial.) Large crowds of thousands of people rushed to some vaccination sites in Metro Manila and in Antipolo, Rizal, which was linked to the misinformation stated above. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Thanks! Caehlla2357 ( talk) 08:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Hello, I just created a stub article for Fazze, an influencer marketing agency that was behind a multi country online COVID-19 disinformation campaign. Any help would would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 16:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lab leak theory on the origin of COVID-19 be treated and described as a:
Consider cleanup? Many of these are minor. 26zhangi ( talk) 19:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian published an interesting article this week that somebody [else!] may consider worth a mention in the article? [1] The essence is that Russia and China have been creating false stories deliberately, as a form of infowar. I don't know enough about the topic to evaluate its importance or its value to the article. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
References
On August 26, 2021 Japan reported finding contamination in some unused Moderna vaccines. They also stated the contamination reacted to a magnet and may be metal. This is relevant to the claims of magnetic attraction to injections sites. YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 07:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
We will have to wait until the results of the investigation. But if they found magnetic material inside vaccine vials, this questions if those with magnetic injection sites also had contamination in their injection. YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 10:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
It's unclear if medical journals will step into physics, and confirm if magnetic material can attract a magnet. We will have to wait and see. YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
In August 2021, it was revealed the Sinovac vaccine carries a risk of Bell's palsy:
"A recent study conducted by investigators from the Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research at the University of Hong Kong, in collaboration with the School of Nursing, has found that there is an increased risk of Bell’s Palsy after the administration of the CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine." YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 08:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
It was published in a medical journal: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00451-5/fulltext YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 10:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
From the interpretation section: "Our findings suggest an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy after CoronaVac vaccination." YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 10:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
And from the papers abstract:
"the findings from Eric Wan and colleagues' study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases showed an overall increased risk of Bell's palsy after immunisation with CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech), a vaccine that uses the inactivated virus." YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 11:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Claims have been circulated on social media that the Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine (active ingredient tozinameran) causes Bell's palsy.The cited primary study refers to CoronaVac inactivated viral particle vaccine, not the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine. So this study doesn't apply to the page as written. Bakkster Man ( talk) 12:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I write this post in a neutral manner:
This month Canada has updated the warning label for the Pfizer vaccine and it now includes Bell's Palsy: https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2021/76203a-eng.php
The updated drug info is available at:
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
And page 21 says: "Post-Market Adverse Reactions The following adverse reactions have been identified during post authorization use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Cardiac disorders: myocarditis and/or pericarditis (see WARNING AND PRECAUTIONS section) Immune System Disorders: severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, and other hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash, pruritus, urticaria, angioedema) Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue Disorders: pain in extremity (arm) Nervous System Disorders: Facial paralysis / Bell’s Palsy" YeshuaAdoni ( talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Source #441 cites Quillette. This is not considered a reliable source, please remove it. TWM03 ( talk) 22:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)