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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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.
As per the kind suggestion of User:ProcrastinatingReader who deleted my original contribution and said "try rewriting this in less than 5200 words", I have now reduced the number of words to less than 5200., in fact only 390 (about 2500 Characters and 1 paragraph). I have agreed to move this discussion here from the respective users talk page. It has come to my attention that User: Novem Linguae deleted my contribution and the contribution of RandomCanadian on spurious grounds: "(→Wuhan lab leak story: trim WP:PROFRINGE)" https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_misinformation&diff=next&oldid=1006462421 Kindly clarify how can the statement of the Director General contradicting the previous claim be considered WP:PROFRINGE? Effectively your and the other user's edits gagged the Director General of the WHO as promoting WP:PROFRINGE, which is absurd. Previously, RandomCanadian deleted a correctly referenced and pithy quote quote from the Director General which clarified the earlier claim on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_misinformation&type=revision&diff=1006512687&oldid=1006437332 However, the information was accurate and correctly sourced ,and not a repetitive quotation (where is the other version of the quote?) User: Novem Linguae responded on his talk pages but I am not convinced by this argument as it seems that it is based on the perception of "strangeness" by User:Novem Linguae and some indecision on his part. It also fails to address the issue of categorising the Director General of the WHO as WP:PROFRINGE. RandomCanadian also responded by deleting my request on his talk pages and attempting to escalate the issue instead of engaging in intelligent and calm discussion of the issue as requested: " →I advise you against fragmenting this discussion and harassing all involved editors -" As it stands, the users [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian] and User: Novem Linguae have deleted an accurately sourced quote from the Director General of the WHO which updates and clarifies (as was clearly his intention) the standing claim in the section. Not only was the quote deleted, but any reference to his words was expunged with the strange claim that it was WP:PROFRINGE. I feel that this is a clear example of bias and would like to see it reverted or changed to a mutually acceptable insert that accurately reflects the Director General's comments. I am merely trying to contribute to this page by adding useful information, which is relevant, accurate and timely. Any discussion should focus of the content rather than attacking the contributor. Thank You Billybostickson ( talk) 15:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader OK, I will see what I can do. I included the quotes to give fair balance to the other users' opinion, but I can delete them to make it more readable and succinct. Billybostickson ( talk) 15:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, ProcrastinatingReader i followed your advice and cut it by 50 percent and contained it in one paragraph, about 2500 Characters now. Billybostickson ( talk) 15:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader OK, I get your first point although I disagree with the decision to not publish the Director General's clarification of the WHO team's earlier statement on the grounds that it is WP:PROFRINGE. That is clearly absurd. Regarding your second point, the current scientific consensus is that a bioengineered virus is not valid. There is currently no scientific consensus that an LAI (lab acquired infection) involving hACE2 mice or contaminated cell culture with a latent undetected and novel bat betacoronavirus or sewage/waste water Lab leak is invalid. It would be wise to avoid conflating two different theories as it casts a poor light on WP's neutrality. Billybostickson ( talk) 16:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader Let me put it another way, you said: "The point is that scientific consensus is that the lab leak theory is not valid" This is not accurate, there may be a consensus that a bio-engineered virus theory is invalid but I have yet to see any scientific consensus that a lab leak is impossible or theories supporting it are invalid. Who said that? As you know, multiple scientists, including Ebright, Lentzos, Sirotkin, Leitenberg, Relman (who worked with WIV to improve biosafety in 207-2018) consider a lab leak possible and quite likely and some have called for an investigation of laboratories in Wuhan. A case in point can be found here:
"The data currently available are not sufficient to firmly assert whether SARS-CoV2 results from a zoonotic emergence or from an accidental escape of a laboratory strain."
From: Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1
Finally, the Director of the WHO was forced to issue a clarification of the WHO team comments that it was highly unlikely and would not be investigated by them any further, which is what this discussion is about.
Billybostickson (
talk)
16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Director General's statement, what exactly is ambiguous about his statement? Here it is:
"Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded."
"I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study."
It is crystal clear that "All Hypotheses" includes "All Hypotheses", including the Lab Leak Hypothesis which was included on a slide shown by the team coordinator, Peter Emberak, during the recent WHO Press Conference.
There seems to be intent to misinterpret the very clear statement by Dr. Tedros and accuse him of WP:FRINGE. This will bring WP into disrepute. Billybostickson ( talk) 17:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn Please carefully read the context of the quote rather than peddling your own increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories about Bill Gates and 5G on this talk page.
Thank you Billybostickson ( talk) 17:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader Do you mean "Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review" It is a review article. Here is the citation: Sallard, E., Halloy, J., Casane, D. et al. Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review. Environ Chem Lett (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1
Alexbrn Nobody except for some Wikipedia editors seem to have any doubt about the meaning of Dr. Tedros's statement:
The background which informs the statement can be understood here: "A spokesperson for the WHO says the mission will be guided by science, and “will be open-minded, iterative, not excluding any hypothesis that could contribute to generating evidence and narrowing the focus of research”." Where did COVID come from? WHO investigation begins but faces challenges https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03165-9 and the WHO Tors (China Side) https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200802-tors-chn-and-who-agreed-final-version.pdf and https://www.who.int/nepal/activities/supporting-elimination-of-kala-azar-as-a-public-health-problem/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200802-tors-chn-and-who-agreed-final-version Billybostickson ( talk) 17:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] User:PaleoNeonate User:Thucydides411 User:RandomCanadian [[User:BritishFinance] User:Novem_Linguae User:ProcrastinatingReader User: Hemiauchenia User: XOR'easter The kind of concerted and malicious gatekeeping by certain accounts, throttling of contributors, gagging of the Director General of the WHO and evident ongoing bias concerning this topic is laughable. I understand some of the more rational concerns concerning some conspiracy theories, but this page and the way it has been managed to date is putting WP into disrepute. Luckily many Scientists, such as Ebright, Leitenberg, Fumanski, Relman, Sirotkin, Decroly, Lentzos, van Helden, Canard, etc, have come out with support for the lab leak theory: http://www.ianbirrell.com/world-experts-condemn-who-inquiry-as-a-charade/ Multiple news media sources have the courage and determination to pursue the lab leak theory as a plausible, indeed likely hypothesis: https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9257413/Secret-bat-cages-Wuhan-lab-researchers-planned-breed-animals-virus-experiments.html As have AP, BBC, Le Monde, Sky News, The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Times, Taiwan News, L'Equipe, etc. Now Professor John Watson from the WHO team has confirmed on BBC News that all hypotheses are still on the table and in response to a specific question from the interviewer that the lab leak hypothesis has not been ruled out. See : Prof John Watson on Wuhan Covid origins (BBC Politics). Andrew Marr with papers, politics and culture: Most Sundays from 9am on BBC One https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1360885644600373255/vid/1280x720/ZZYs8_GsMda1GB_9.mp4 Will you be saying that Professor Watson is WP:FRINGE now? Or the BBC is not a valid source? When people read these articles and watch the news stories, then come here to have a check, they will be gobsmacked at how a handful of biased editors and admins are dedicating themselves to making WP a laughing stock. Keep up the good work, lads! You all deserve medals for obfuscation! I will send to your private IRC Channel if you let me join up. What's it called? "Just SAY YES to Lab Leaks"? Now, kindly restore my contribution in its entirety and you can add Professor Watson’s statement as a way of apologizing for your collective stubbornness. Billybostickson ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
As I am not able to contribute accurate, well sourced and timely text to clarify a false claim on the Article Page because of constant reverts and threats, I have asked for some dispute resolution, as threatening to block contributors for voicing their opinions and arguing a point which is in fact correct (as you will see), is not helpful and is considered harassment.
The section conflates the lab leak hypothesis with the bioengineering hypothesis. The lab leak thesis has been discussed in serious terms in many mainstream scientific and general news publications. The bioengineering hypothesis has been rejected by a number of leading scientists but pretty much no one among them asserts they have "proven" natural origin ( Ralph Baric has said as much: to exclude bioengineering hypothesis, a forensic investigation is needed [1]). All the sources have been provided on this discussion page, again and again. Still it gets rejected under false pretenses. To call these theories "misinformation" is misinformation, and likely was influenced by the action of professional operatives. The only vaguely "scientific" source is a letter to Nature by a virologist. Not a single study is cited, only Forbes and NPR articles, and now just a few words on the WHO group declaration. However, although the section almost exclusively cites generalist press, it doesn't cites a single line out of the countless that have been written in favor of the lab leak hypothesis, and to a lesser degree, the bioengineering thesis. That the community would let this happen is absolutely unacceptable and deeply damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. We need to face up to the fact that we are being gamed, and thoroughly so, and this is pushing people to lose trust and leave this platform as contributors and even readers. Fa suisse ( talk) 05:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) Figure 3 seems to indicate the cause and origins of the virus were the most common type of misinformation of the collected reports.{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I am still very uncomfortable with the prominence, level of detail, tone and POV positioning of the information presented in this article with respect to the lab leak hypothesis that the WHO have on the table. It's a big deal in the media and, I think, deserves more weight to be given to its coverage in Wikipedia.
Currently it's buried in an article about misinformation, even though it is definitely a matter of fact that that this is a proposed hypothesis. It's not explained in the article why mention of its existence as a hypothesis is considered to be misinformation.
Secondly it's even buried within this article, being given a junior position at the bottom of a section covering conspiracy theories, including that the virus is not natural, involving labs. It is not a part of these theories so should, I think, at least, have its own section.
The one sentence that currently covers it is clearly inadequate.
Even though there is only one sentence about it, that has at least two problems. The premise suggests that this hypothesis does not assume that the virus originated in animals before spreading to humans, which is false. It hypothesises that a natural virus, present in the lab for some reason, accidentally escaped. The conclusion is an editorialised summary of a controversial interpretation of the source (see #Interview / Failed verification above) - "considered to be even more unlikely"? Even if we agreed that he said it was now more unlikely, which we don't, there is no need to peacock it up.
I think the preceding three points say it all.
I propose, in the first instance that we:
I'm sure there will be other stuff about it to discuss too. -- DeFacto ( talk). 08:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
To address the WP:FRINGE topic of the lab leak, we need sources discussing it and/or which give the mainstream context of how the science views the question of the virus's origin, for necessary context. These are the WP:BESTSOURCES. I believe we are now fully aligned with what they say, so WP:NPOV is achieved.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)In the absence of better sourcing, I suggest we are done here. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.Accepted academic scholarship which is cited in the article. Q.E.D. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 09:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn Please provide in a systematic fashion quotes from the seven sources that you have provided that indicate a lab origin is misinformation. A quick look at your sources show they are dated and do not support your claim. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 11:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation. Please get a good night's sleep and read the paper properly.
Richard H. Ebright, a microbiologist and biosafety expert at Rutgers University, said: “The question whether the outbreak virus entered humans through an accidental infection of a lab worker is a question of historical fact, not a question of scientific fact. The question can be answered only through a forensic investigation, not through a scientific investigation.”. Please do not misrepresent these sources to foment heated discussion on what is clearly a legitimate origin hypothesis now being investigated by the US Government and the WHO.
lack of transparency around the origins of the virus. According to this report, the Biden admin also criticized WHO investigators for releasing a premature report, which was walked back by the WHO DG. This NBC report follows another report they made yesterday describing how China is withholding forensic evidence (
"key data, including blood samples"), and we can add both of them (as well as the NY Times report it cites) to the growing stack of reliable sources reporting on this controversy (all of which must be read properly by Wikipedia editors and presented accurately for Wikipedia readers).
There appear to be multiple simultaneous conversations about this topic going on at a bunch of different pages. This is a comment I provided on a different talk page in regards to the solid sourcing for why this material is not misinformation:
An example of a reliable source discussing the opinion of some scientists in regards to this topic see this quote:
In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux1, Ralph S Baric2, Trevor Bedford3, Jesse Bloom4, Bruno Canard5, Etienne Decroly5, Richard H. Ebright6, Michael B. Eisen7, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos8, Michael Z. Lin9, Marc Lipsitch10, Stuart A Newman11, Rasmus Nielsen12, Megan J. Palmer13, Nikolai Petrovsky14, Angela Rasmussen15 and David A. Relman16 – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely.
We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list.[2]
Also in regards to a recent science review article on this topic see:
To conclude, on the basis of currently available data it is not possible to determine whether the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a zoonosis from a wild viral strain or an accidental escape of experimental strains. Answering this question is of crucial importance to establish future policies of prevention and biosafety. Indeed, a recent zoonosis would justify enforcing the sampling in natural ecosystems and/or farms and breeding facilities in order to prevent new spillover. Conversely, the perspective of a laboratory escape would call for an in-depth revision of the risk/benefit balance of some laboratory practices, as well as an enforcement of biosafety regulations. As the international team of 10 experts mandated by the WHO enters in China to investigate on SARS-CoV-2 origins (Mallapaty 2020), all the rational hypotheses should be envisaged in an open minded way.
Also in regards to a recent biosafety review article
There are two major hypotheses to explain the origin of COVID-19. One is the "natural origin" hypothesis, the other is that it might have escaped from a laboratory, with its origin subsequently hidden. Although most scientists support the natural origin idea the other cannot yet be dismissed. Evidence for each hypothesis is presented. If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance.
Here is another science review on the topic:
to fully understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2 we must adjust our operating assumptions. First and foremost, the scope of hosts must include those where serial passage has taken place or is likely to occur, even if they are not naturally occurring as is the case of knockout mice with human ACE2 receptors."
Clearly, the lab origin hypothesis is being reviewed and is on the table in science. If this obstruction continues on this page, I suggest a request for comment. The sources above are solid. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 11:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Robby.is.on, can you point out where the "consensus against inclusion" of this, that you mention here, is please. I can't see it, and I find it hard to imagine why we want to leave misinformation (WHO's former position on this without also adding their later update) in an article condemning misinformation! -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
“We were very clear in our ability to be able to ask questions about all of that,” he said. “That is a hypothesis that remains on the table and could certainly have further work done on it.”
China has faced claims that the Wuhan Institute of Virology could be the suspected source of the Covid-19 virus.
Last week, a team of experts from China and the WHO concluded that it was “extremely unlikely” that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory-related incident.
Prof Watson said the most likely source remained an “animal reservoir somewhere and that the infection got to humans, probably, through an intermediate host”.
But he added that China was “by no means necessarily the place where the leap from animals to humans took place and I think we need to ensure that we are looking beyond the borders of China, as well as within China.”
On 12 February 2021, the WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stated that the hypothesis that Covid had originated in a laboratory in Wuhan had not been ruled out and required further study.This would clear up the matter and make this article more credible. -- DeFacto ( talk). 08:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
"He was commenting on a hypothesis"← which single hypothesis was he commenting on? What is the wording that singles this one hypothesis out? Alexbrn ( talk) 18:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
When I added this here it was reverted stating that it doesn’t belong here but should be in covid 19 origin investigation page When I added it there it was reverted stating that this content has already been reverted. Don't add it again. I am yet to get a proper reason for the reverts. And its all reverts everytime. Not an edit / update / rewrite / delete etc
But in a press briefing on February 12, WHO chief Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appeared to walk back Embarek’s comments. [1] [2]
J mareeswaran ( talk) 01:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
References
"Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded," Tedros said at the start of the press conference. "Having spoken with some members of the team, I wish to confirm that all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis and studies. Some of that work may lie outside the remit and scope of this mission."
This
edit request to
COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Intention: This is about the last paragraph of 'Wuhan lab leak story'. The word 'theory' is replaced with the word 'hypothesis' in order to be more accurate, since this paragraph is about research the WHO did and not about beliefs that come from just anywhere. I also added a quote from the mission chief that gives more perspective on how he and his colleagues usually might talk about the lab leak hypothesis. It indicates that there was never much motivation to build up evidence for the lab leak hypothesis:
On February 9, 2021 a team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic for the World Health Organization said that that the coronavirus "most likely" originated in animals before spreading to humans, and rated the lab leak hypothesis as "extremely unlikely", [1] [2] [3] with the WHO mission chief saying in a subsequent interview to Science that as a consequence of the investigation, the lab leak hypothesis was considered even more unlikely than before. Quote from the same interview after the mission chief was asked if it was a mistake to call the lab leak hypothesis 'extremely unlikely', when Tredos, director general of the WHO, had stated shortly after that 'all hypotheses are on the table.':
Yes, lab accidents do happen around the world; they have happened in the past. The fact that several laboratories of relevance are in and around Wuhan, and are working with coronavirus, is another fact. Beyond that we didn’t have much in terms of looking at that hypothesis as a likely option.
[4] While the WHO investigation supported what most experts already expected, it could still take years to answer some questions about the origin of the pandemic. [5] PleaseInvestIntoFusion ( talk) 10:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
References
TNYT today: "A mild case [of COVID-19] is effectively the common cold." (It's a miracle!) Drsruli ( talk) 12:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/briefing/ted-cruz-texas-water-iran-nuclear.html Drsruli ( talk) 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
To take one example: The initial research trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines did not study whether a vaccinated person could get infected and infect another person. But the accumulated scientific evidence suggests the chances are very small that a vaccinated person could infect someone else with a severe case of Covid. (A mild case is effectively the common cold.) You wouldn’t know that from much of the public discussion.
In the context of famous people comparing it to the flu? Drsruli ( talk) 20:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Reverted deletion: Plenty of precedents in this section: See i.e., 3.3 Allegations of inflated death counts Activist ( talk) 21:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Frontiers Removes Controversial Ivermectin Paper Pre-Publication -- Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 05:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
While the gist of this section is truthful beyond doubt, the argument it makes is undermined by inaccuracy.
Consider the summing-up last sentence of the section: "The rumor of Lieber, a chemist in an area entirely unrelated to the virus research, creating the coronavirus and selling it to China has been discredited." The rumor does seem to have been discredited, but "a chemist in an area entirely unrelated to the virus research" is manifestly untrue. I adduce two straightforward examples both of which have ample corroborating evidence.
First, Lieber, was one of the founders of Nanosys Inc., whose director of business development was quoted in 2003 as follows: "In addition...Nanosys is working with the defense industry to develop biological sensors to detect chemical or biological attacks in advance, says Mr. Empedocles." [1]
Second and more directly, Lieber himself can be found announcing through various media channels his interest in developing nanoscale detection systems for identifying the presence of viruses, including bioweapon viruses. Direct Lieber quote from 2004: "Viruses are among the most important causes of human disease and are of increasing concern as agents for bioterrorism...Our work shows that nanoscale silicon wires can be configured as detectors that turn on or off in the presence of a single virus particle." [2]. That's from the topmost search result for a google search of "Charles Lieber nano detection bioweapons"; many other similar results in the list.
The concluding sentence of the section should be changed to ""The rumor of Lieber creating the coronavirus and selling it to China has been discredited." TadeuszMorgensternPodjazd ( talk) 23:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
References
What's I feel is missing from this page is a paragraph on virus denialism. I have covered this in a 25-part series THE CORONA CONSPIRACY on my website Integral World. While David Icke and Thomas Cowan are mentioned under the 5G section, there is a larger group of those who deny the very existence of viruses, and therefore of SARS-CoV-2. Examples are: David Icke, Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Stefano Scoglio, Torsten Engelbrecht, Samantha Bailey, etc. In general they claim that viruses are actually exosomes generated by our cells when under stress (by various causes, including but not limited to 5G). The common argument here is that "the virus has never been isolated." Icke initially launched Kaufman to fame in his London Real interview, and Kaufman has teamed up with Cowan, Lanka and Scoglio recently to spread this view that viruses don't exist and a healthy lifestyle is the cure for all ills. Since these articles are written by myself I don't know exactly how to mention this on this Wikipedia page and avoid self-promotion. Any suggestions?
My work is mentioned by skeptic David Gorski in his blog post on germ theory denial.
FrankVisser101 ( talk) 10:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Blogs are typically not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, as they are self-published sources. See the policy on self-published sources: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."
Are there more mainstream sources which have covered these informal group's fringe views? Dimadick ( talk) 15:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
cf "There are false claims spread that the usage of masks causes adverse health-related issues such as low blood oxygen levels,[258]" - this reference 258 leads to " Bessonov, Ania (18 July 2020). "Do masks reduce your oxygen levels? Your COVID-19 questions answered". CBC News. - "I haven't seen any medical or scientific evidence that shows that wearing a mask depletes your body of oxygen," said Dr. Susy Hota, medical director of infection prevention and control at Toronto's University Health Network." We need better references, the references the Dr. bases her claim upon. Can anybody help? Thy, SvenAERTS ( talk) 20:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
There was an interesting article about lab leaks in general, most in the US, in USA Today ( https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/opinion/2021/03/22/why-covid-lab-leak-theory-wuhan-shouldnt-dismissed-column/4765985001/) and discussion on Hacker News (802 comments) ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26540458#26545903)
The top comment:
>This is a great article explaining why a lab leak should always be a suspect. The alternative theory is that a virus traveled on its own (via bats or other animals) from bat caves 900km away to Wuhan where there are 2 labs researching bats. One of the labs is lesser known but is right next to the seafood market and the hospital where the outbreak was first known.
>This article points out that a lab outbreak could have happened in the United States and many places in the world. We need to avoid demonizing China over this if we want to ever find out the truth and learn how to prevent another pandemic outbreak.
Seems a reasonable position to me. Maybe a lab leak article including the Wuhan possibilities in the context of the many other leaks in history? Tim333 ( talk) 10:06, 23 March 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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.
As per the kind suggestion of User:ProcrastinatingReader who deleted my original contribution and said "try rewriting this in less than 5200 words", I have now reduced the number of words to less than 5200., in fact only 390 (about 2500 Characters and 1 paragraph). I have agreed to move this discussion here from the respective users talk page. It has come to my attention that User: Novem Linguae deleted my contribution and the contribution of RandomCanadian on spurious grounds: "(→Wuhan lab leak story: trim WP:PROFRINGE)" https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_misinformation&diff=next&oldid=1006462421 Kindly clarify how can the statement of the Director General contradicting the previous claim be considered WP:PROFRINGE? Effectively your and the other user's edits gagged the Director General of the WHO as promoting WP:PROFRINGE, which is absurd. Previously, RandomCanadian deleted a correctly referenced and pithy quote quote from the Director General which clarified the earlier claim on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_misinformation&type=revision&diff=1006512687&oldid=1006437332 However, the information was accurate and correctly sourced ,and not a repetitive quotation (where is the other version of the quote?) User: Novem Linguae responded on his talk pages but I am not convinced by this argument as it seems that it is based on the perception of "strangeness" by User:Novem Linguae and some indecision on his part. It also fails to address the issue of categorising the Director General of the WHO as WP:PROFRINGE. RandomCanadian also responded by deleting my request on his talk pages and attempting to escalate the issue instead of engaging in intelligent and calm discussion of the issue as requested: " →I advise you against fragmenting this discussion and harassing all involved editors -" As it stands, the users [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian] and User: Novem Linguae have deleted an accurately sourced quote from the Director General of the WHO which updates and clarifies (as was clearly his intention) the standing claim in the section. Not only was the quote deleted, but any reference to his words was expunged with the strange claim that it was WP:PROFRINGE. I feel that this is a clear example of bias and would like to see it reverted or changed to a mutually acceptable insert that accurately reflects the Director General's comments. I am merely trying to contribute to this page by adding useful information, which is relevant, accurate and timely. Any discussion should focus of the content rather than attacking the contributor. Thank You Billybostickson ( talk) 15:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader OK, I will see what I can do. I included the quotes to give fair balance to the other users' opinion, but I can delete them to make it more readable and succinct. Billybostickson ( talk) 15:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, ProcrastinatingReader i followed your advice and cut it by 50 percent and contained it in one paragraph, about 2500 Characters now. Billybostickson ( talk) 15:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader OK, I get your first point although I disagree with the decision to not publish the Director General's clarification of the WHO team's earlier statement on the grounds that it is WP:PROFRINGE. That is clearly absurd. Regarding your second point, the current scientific consensus is that a bioengineered virus is not valid. There is currently no scientific consensus that an LAI (lab acquired infection) involving hACE2 mice or contaminated cell culture with a latent undetected and novel bat betacoronavirus or sewage/waste water Lab leak is invalid. It would be wise to avoid conflating two different theories as it casts a poor light on WP's neutrality. Billybostickson ( talk) 16:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader Let me put it another way, you said: "The point is that scientific consensus is that the lab leak theory is not valid" This is not accurate, there may be a consensus that a bio-engineered virus theory is invalid but I have yet to see any scientific consensus that a lab leak is impossible or theories supporting it are invalid. Who said that? As you know, multiple scientists, including Ebright, Lentzos, Sirotkin, Leitenberg, Relman (who worked with WIV to improve biosafety in 207-2018) consider a lab leak possible and quite likely and some have called for an investigation of laboratories in Wuhan. A case in point can be found here:
"The data currently available are not sufficient to firmly assert whether SARS-CoV2 results from a zoonotic emergence or from an accidental escape of a laboratory strain."
From: Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1
Finally, the Director of the WHO was forced to issue a clarification of the WHO team comments that it was highly unlikely and would not be investigated by them any further, which is what this discussion is about.
Billybostickson (
talk)
16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Director General's statement, what exactly is ambiguous about his statement? Here it is:
"Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded."
"I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study."
It is crystal clear that "All Hypotheses" includes "All Hypotheses", including the Lab Leak Hypothesis which was included on a slide shown by the team coordinator, Peter Emberak, during the recent WHO Press Conference.
There seems to be intent to misinterpret the very clear statement by Dr. Tedros and accuse him of WP:FRINGE. This will bring WP into disrepute. Billybostickson ( talk) 17:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn Please carefully read the context of the quote rather than peddling your own increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories about Bill Gates and 5G on this talk page.
Thank you Billybostickson ( talk) 17:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader Do you mean "Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review" It is a review article. Here is the citation: Sallard, E., Halloy, J., Casane, D. et al. Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review. Environ Chem Lett (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1
Alexbrn Nobody except for some Wikipedia editors seem to have any doubt about the meaning of Dr. Tedros's statement:
The background which informs the statement can be understood here: "A spokesperson for the WHO says the mission will be guided by science, and “will be open-minded, iterative, not excluding any hypothesis that could contribute to generating evidence and narrowing the focus of research”." Where did COVID come from? WHO investigation begins but faces challenges https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03165-9 and the WHO Tors (China Side) https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200802-tors-chn-and-who-agreed-final-version.pdf and https://www.who.int/nepal/activities/supporting-elimination-of-kala-azar-as-a-public-health-problem/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200802-tors-chn-and-who-agreed-final-version Billybostickson ( talk) 17:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] User:PaleoNeonate User:Thucydides411 User:RandomCanadian [[User:BritishFinance] User:Novem_Linguae User:ProcrastinatingReader User: Hemiauchenia User: XOR'easter The kind of concerted and malicious gatekeeping by certain accounts, throttling of contributors, gagging of the Director General of the WHO and evident ongoing bias concerning this topic is laughable. I understand some of the more rational concerns concerning some conspiracy theories, but this page and the way it has been managed to date is putting WP into disrepute. Luckily many Scientists, such as Ebright, Leitenberg, Fumanski, Relman, Sirotkin, Decroly, Lentzos, van Helden, Canard, etc, have come out with support for the lab leak theory: http://www.ianbirrell.com/world-experts-condemn-who-inquiry-as-a-charade/ Multiple news media sources have the courage and determination to pursue the lab leak theory as a plausible, indeed likely hypothesis: https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9257413/Secret-bat-cages-Wuhan-lab-researchers-planned-breed-animals-virus-experiments.html As have AP, BBC, Le Monde, Sky News, The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Times, Taiwan News, L'Equipe, etc. Now Professor John Watson from the WHO team has confirmed on BBC News that all hypotheses are still on the table and in response to a specific question from the interviewer that the lab leak hypothesis has not been ruled out. See : Prof John Watson on Wuhan Covid origins (BBC Politics). Andrew Marr with papers, politics and culture: Most Sundays from 9am on BBC One https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1360885644600373255/vid/1280x720/ZZYs8_GsMda1GB_9.mp4 Will you be saying that Professor Watson is WP:FRINGE now? Or the BBC is not a valid source? When people read these articles and watch the news stories, then come here to have a check, they will be gobsmacked at how a handful of biased editors and admins are dedicating themselves to making WP a laughing stock. Keep up the good work, lads! You all deserve medals for obfuscation! I will send to your private IRC Channel if you let me join up. What's it called? "Just SAY YES to Lab Leaks"? Now, kindly restore my contribution in its entirety and you can add Professor Watson’s statement as a way of apologizing for your collective stubbornness. Billybostickson ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
As I am not able to contribute accurate, well sourced and timely text to clarify a false claim on the Article Page because of constant reverts and threats, I have asked for some dispute resolution, as threatening to block contributors for voicing their opinions and arguing a point which is in fact correct (as you will see), is not helpful and is considered harassment.
The section conflates the lab leak hypothesis with the bioengineering hypothesis. The lab leak thesis has been discussed in serious terms in many mainstream scientific and general news publications. The bioengineering hypothesis has been rejected by a number of leading scientists but pretty much no one among them asserts they have "proven" natural origin ( Ralph Baric has said as much: to exclude bioengineering hypothesis, a forensic investigation is needed [1]). All the sources have been provided on this discussion page, again and again. Still it gets rejected under false pretenses. To call these theories "misinformation" is misinformation, and likely was influenced by the action of professional operatives. The only vaguely "scientific" source is a letter to Nature by a virologist. Not a single study is cited, only Forbes and NPR articles, and now just a few words on the WHO group declaration. However, although the section almost exclusively cites generalist press, it doesn't cites a single line out of the countless that have been written in favor of the lab leak hypothesis, and to a lesser degree, the bioengineering thesis. That the community would let this happen is absolutely unacceptable and deeply damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. We need to face up to the fact that we are being gamed, and thoroughly so, and this is pushing people to lose trust and leave this platform as contributors and even readers. Fa suisse ( talk) 05:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) Figure 3 seems to indicate the cause and origins of the virus were the most common type of misinformation of the collected reports.{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I am still very uncomfortable with the prominence, level of detail, tone and POV positioning of the information presented in this article with respect to the lab leak hypothesis that the WHO have on the table. It's a big deal in the media and, I think, deserves more weight to be given to its coverage in Wikipedia.
Currently it's buried in an article about misinformation, even though it is definitely a matter of fact that that this is a proposed hypothesis. It's not explained in the article why mention of its existence as a hypothesis is considered to be misinformation.
Secondly it's even buried within this article, being given a junior position at the bottom of a section covering conspiracy theories, including that the virus is not natural, involving labs. It is not a part of these theories so should, I think, at least, have its own section.
The one sentence that currently covers it is clearly inadequate.
Even though there is only one sentence about it, that has at least two problems. The premise suggests that this hypothesis does not assume that the virus originated in animals before spreading to humans, which is false. It hypothesises that a natural virus, present in the lab for some reason, accidentally escaped. The conclusion is an editorialised summary of a controversial interpretation of the source (see #Interview / Failed verification above) - "considered to be even more unlikely"? Even if we agreed that he said it was now more unlikely, which we don't, there is no need to peacock it up.
I think the preceding three points say it all.
I propose, in the first instance that we:
I'm sure there will be other stuff about it to discuss too. -- DeFacto ( talk). 08:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
To address the WP:FRINGE topic of the lab leak, we need sources discussing it and/or which give the mainstream context of how the science views the question of the virus's origin, for necessary context. These are the WP:BESTSOURCES. I believe we are now fully aligned with what they say, so WP:NPOV is achieved.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)In the absence of better sourcing, I suggest we are done here. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.Accepted academic scholarship which is cited in the article. Q.E.D. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 09:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn Please provide in a systematic fashion quotes from the seven sources that you have provided that indicate a lab origin is misinformation. A quick look at your sources show they are dated and do not support your claim. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 11:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation. Please get a good night's sleep and read the paper properly.
Richard H. Ebright, a microbiologist and biosafety expert at Rutgers University, said: “The question whether the outbreak virus entered humans through an accidental infection of a lab worker is a question of historical fact, not a question of scientific fact. The question can be answered only through a forensic investigation, not through a scientific investigation.”. Please do not misrepresent these sources to foment heated discussion on what is clearly a legitimate origin hypothesis now being investigated by the US Government and the WHO.
lack of transparency around the origins of the virus. According to this report, the Biden admin also criticized WHO investigators for releasing a premature report, which was walked back by the WHO DG. This NBC report follows another report they made yesterday describing how China is withholding forensic evidence (
"key data, including blood samples"), and we can add both of them (as well as the NY Times report it cites) to the growing stack of reliable sources reporting on this controversy (all of which must be read properly by Wikipedia editors and presented accurately for Wikipedia readers).
There appear to be multiple simultaneous conversations about this topic going on at a bunch of different pages. This is a comment I provided on a different talk page in regards to the solid sourcing for why this material is not misinformation:
An example of a reliable source discussing the opinion of some scientists in regards to this topic see this quote:
In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux1, Ralph S Baric2, Trevor Bedford3, Jesse Bloom4, Bruno Canard5, Etienne Decroly5, Richard H. Ebright6, Michael B. Eisen7, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos8, Michael Z. Lin9, Marc Lipsitch10, Stuart A Newman11, Rasmus Nielsen12, Megan J. Palmer13, Nikolai Petrovsky14, Angela Rasmussen15 and David A. Relman16 – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely.
We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list.[2]
Also in regards to a recent science review article on this topic see:
To conclude, on the basis of currently available data it is not possible to determine whether the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a zoonosis from a wild viral strain or an accidental escape of experimental strains. Answering this question is of crucial importance to establish future policies of prevention and biosafety. Indeed, a recent zoonosis would justify enforcing the sampling in natural ecosystems and/or farms and breeding facilities in order to prevent new spillover. Conversely, the perspective of a laboratory escape would call for an in-depth revision of the risk/benefit balance of some laboratory practices, as well as an enforcement of biosafety regulations. As the international team of 10 experts mandated by the WHO enters in China to investigate on SARS-CoV-2 origins (Mallapaty 2020), all the rational hypotheses should be envisaged in an open minded way.
Also in regards to a recent biosafety review article
There are two major hypotheses to explain the origin of COVID-19. One is the "natural origin" hypothesis, the other is that it might have escaped from a laboratory, with its origin subsequently hidden. Although most scientists support the natural origin idea the other cannot yet be dismissed. Evidence for each hypothesis is presented. If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance.
Here is another science review on the topic:
to fully understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2 we must adjust our operating assumptions. First and foremost, the scope of hosts must include those where serial passage has taken place or is likely to occur, even if they are not naturally occurring as is the case of knockout mice with human ACE2 receptors."
Clearly, the lab origin hypothesis is being reviewed and is on the table in science. If this obstruction continues on this page, I suggest a request for comment. The sources above are solid. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 11:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Robby.is.on, can you point out where the "consensus against inclusion" of this, that you mention here, is please. I can't see it, and I find it hard to imagine why we want to leave misinformation (WHO's former position on this without also adding their later update) in an article condemning misinformation! -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
“We were very clear in our ability to be able to ask questions about all of that,” he said. “That is a hypothesis that remains on the table and could certainly have further work done on it.”
China has faced claims that the Wuhan Institute of Virology could be the suspected source of the Covid-19 virus.
Last week, a team of experts from China and the WHO concluded that it was “extremely unlikely” that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory-related incident.
Prof Watson said the most likely source remained an “animal reservoir somewhere and that the infection got to humans, probably, through an intermediate host”.
But he added that China was “by no means necessarily the place where the leap from animals to humans took place and I think we need to ensure that we are looking beyond the borders of China, as well as within China.”
On 12 February 2021, the WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stated that the hypothesis that Covid had originated in a laboratory in Wuhan had not been ruled out and required further study.This would clear up the matter and make this article more credible. -- DeFacto ( talk). 08:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
"He was commenting on a hypothesis"← which single hypothesis was he commenting on? What is the wording that singles this one hypothesis out? Alexbrn ( talk) 18:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
When I added this here it was reverted stating that it doesn’t belong here but should be in covid 19 origin investigation page When I added it there it was reverted stating that this content has already been reverted. Don't add it again. I am yet to get a proper reason for the reverts. And its all reverts everytime. Not an edit / update / rewrite / delete etc
But in a press briefing on February 12, WHO chief Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appeared to walk back Embarek’s comments. [1] [2]
J mareeswaran ( talk) 01:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
References
"Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded," Tedros said at the start of the press conference. "Having spoken with some members of the team, I wish to confirm that all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis and studies. Some of that work may lie outside the remit and scope of this mission."
This
edit request to
COVID-19 misinformation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Intention: This is about the last paragraph of 'Wuhan lab leak story'. The word 'theory' is replaced with the word 'hypothesis' in order to be more accurate, since this paragraph is about research the WHO did and not about beliefs that come from just anywhere. I also added a quote from the mission chief that gives more perspective on how he and his colleagues usually might talk about the lab leak hypothesis. It indicates that there was never much motivation to build up evidence for the lab leak hypothesis:
On February 9, 2021 a team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic for the World Health Organization said that that the coronavirus "most likely" originated in animals before spreading to humans, and rated the lab leak hypothesis as "extremely unlikely", [1] [2] [3] with the WHO mission chief saying in a subsequent interview to Science that as a consequence of the investigation, the lab leak hypothesis was considered even more unlikely than before. Quote from the same interview after the mission chief was asked if it was a mistake to call the lab leak hypothesis 'extremely unlikely', when Tredos, director general of the WHO, had stated shortly after that 'all hypotheses are on the table.':
Yes, lab accidents do happen around the world; they have happened in the past. The fact that several laboratories of relevance are in and around Wuhan, and are working with coronavirus, is another fact. Beyond that we didn’t have much in terms of looking at that hypothesis as a likely option.
[4] While the WHO investigation supported what most experts already expected, it could still take years to answer some questions about the origin of the pandemic. [5] PleaseInvestIntoFusion ( talk) 10:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
References
TNYT today: "A mild case [of COVID-19] is effectively the common cold." (It's a miracle!) Drsruli ( talk) 12:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/briefing/ted-cruz-texas-water-iran-nuclear.html Drsruli ( talk) 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
To take one example: The initial research trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines did not study whether a vaccinated person could get infected and infect another person. But the accumulated scientific evidence suggests the chances are very small that a vaccinated person could infect someone else with a severe case of Covid. (A mild case is effectively the common cold.) You wouldn’t know that from much of the public discussion.
In the context of famous people comparing it to the flu? Drsruli ( talk) 20:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Reverted deletion: Plenty of precedents in this section: See i.e., 3.3 Allegations of inflated death counts Activist ( talk) 21:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Frontiers Removes Controversial Ivermectin Paper Pre-Publication -- Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 05:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
While the gist of this section is truthful beyond doubt, the argument it makes is undermined by inaccuracy.
Consider the summing-up last sentence of the section: "The rumor of Lieber, a chemist in an area entirely unrelated to the virus research, creating the coronavirus and selling it to China has been discredited." The rumor does seem to have been discredited, but "a chemist in an area entirely unrelated to the virus research" is manifestly untrue. I adduce two straightforward examples both of which have ample corroborating evidence.
First, Lieber, was one of the founders of Nanosys Inc., whose director of business development was quoted in 2003 as follows: "In addition...Nanosys is working with the defense industry to develop biological sensors to detect chemical or biological attacks in advance, says Mr. Empedocles." [1]
Second and more directly, Lieber himself can be found announcing through various media channels his interest in developing nanoscale detection systems for identifying the presence of viruses, including bioweapon viruses. Direct Lieber quote from 2004: "Viruses are among the most important causes of human disease and are of increasing concern as agents for bioterrorism...Our work shows that nanoscale silicon wires can be configured as detectors that turn on or off in the presence of a single virus particle." [2]. That's from the topmost search result for a google search of "Charles Lieber nano detection bioweapons"; many other similar results in the list.
The concluding sentence of the section should be changed to ""The rumor of Lieber creating the coronavirus and selling it to China has been discredited." TadeuszMorgensternPodjazd ( talk) 23:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
References
What's I feel is missing from this page is a paragraph on virus denialism. I have covered this in a 25-part series THE CORONA CONSPIRACY on my website Integral World. While David Icke and Thomas Cowan are mentioned under the 5G section, there is a larger group of those who deny the very existence of viruses, and therefore of SARS-CoV-2. Examples are: David Icke, Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Stefano Scoglio, Torsten Engelbrecht, Samantha Bailey, etc. In general they claim that viruses are actually exosomes generated by our cells when under stress (by various causes, including but not limited to 5G). The common argument here is that "the virus has never been isolated." Icke initially launched Kaufman to fame in his London Real interview, and Kaufman has teamed up with Cowan, Lanka and Scoglio recently to spread this view that viruses don't exist and a healthy lifestyle is the cure for all ills. Since these articles are written by myself I don't know exactly how to mention this on this Wikipedia page and avoid self-promotion. Any suggestions?
My work is mentioned by skeptic David Gorski in his blog post on germ theory denial.
FrankVisser101 ( talk) 10:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Blogs are typically not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, as they are self-published sources. See the policy on self-published sources: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."
Are there more mainstream sources which have covered these informal group's fringe views? Dimadick ( talk) 15:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
cf "There are false claims spread that the usage of masks causes adverse health-related issues such as low blood oxygen levels,[258]" - this reference 258 leads to " Bessonov, Ania (18 July 2020). "Do masks reduce your oxygen levels? Your COVID-19 questions answered". CBC News. - "I haven't seen any medical or scientific evidence that shows that wearing a mask depletes your body of oxygen," said Dr. Susy Hota, medical director of infection prevention and control at Toronto's University Health Network." We need better references, the references the Dr. bases her claim upon. Can anybody help? Thy, SvenAERTS ( talk) 20:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
There was an interesting article about lab leaks in general, most in the US, in USA Today ( https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/opinion/2021/03/22/why-covid-lab-leak-theory-wuhan-shouldnt-dismissed-column/4765985001/) and discussion on Hacker News (802 comments) ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26540458#26545903)
The top comment:
>This is a great article explaining why a lab leak should always be a suspect. The alternative theory is that a virus traveled on its own (via bats or other animals) from bat caves 900km away to Wuhan where there are 2 labs researching bats. One of the labs is lesser known but is right next to the seafood market and the hospital where the outbreak was first known.
>This article points out that a lab outbreak could have happened in the United States and many places in the world. We need to avoid demonizing China over this if we want to ever find out the truth and learn how to prevent another pandemic outbreak.
Seems a reasonable position to me. Maybe a lab leak article including the Wuhan possibilities in the context of the many other leaks in history? Tim333 ( talk) 10:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)