Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 6

Add section about debunking/fact checking that itself has become misinformation
Example: APNews "No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19" fact checking article claiming
 * No evidence has been shown to prove that ivermectin works against COVID-19

However there is a plethora of scientific articles and studies (including double blind placebo) that indeed show that it is an effective and safe treatment. Discussion about journalistic integrity of the AP could also be interesting.

References: 1.Afsar et al., SSRN., Ivermectin Use Associated with Reduced Duration of COVID-19 Febrile Illness in a Community Setting, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3734478.

2.Ahmed et al., International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191, A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220325066.

3.Alam et al., European Journal ofMedical and Health Sciences, doi:10.24018/ejmed.2020.2.6.599, Ivermectin as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 among Healthcare Providers in a Selected Tertiary Hospital in Dhaka – An Observational Study, https://ejmed.org/index.php/ejmed/article/view/599.

4.Altman, D., BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.d2304, How to obtain the P value from a confidence interval, https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d2304.

5.Altman (B) et al., BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.d2090, How to obtain the confidence interval from a P value, https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d2090.

6.Anglemyer et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4, doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2, Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cd..0.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2/full.

7.Behera et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.29.20222661v1, Role of ivermectin in the prevention of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.29.20222661v1.

8.Bernigaud et al., Annals of Dermatology and Venereology, doi:10.1016/j.annder.2020.09.231, Ivermectin benefit: from scabies to COVID-19, an example of serendipity, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S015196382030627X.

9.Budhiraja et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.11.16.20232223, Clinical Profile of First 1000 COVID-19 Cases Admitted at Tertiary Care Hospitals and the Correlates of their Mortality: An Indian Experience, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232223v1.

10.Cadegiani et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.31.20223883, Early COVID-19 Therapy with Azithromycin Plus Nitazoxanide, Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine in Outpatient Settings Significantly Reduced Symptoms Compared to Known Outcomes in Untreated Patients, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.31.20223883v1.

11.Camprubí et al., PLoS ONE, 15:11, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242184, Lack of efficacy of standard doses of ivermectin in severe COVID-19 patients, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/..le?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184.

12.Carvallo et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.09.10.20191619, Safety and Efficacy of the combined use of ivermectin, dexamethasone, enoxaparin and aspirin against COVID-19, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.10.20191619v1.

13.Carvallo (B) et al., Journal of Biomedical Research and Clinical Investigation, doi:10.31546/2633-8653.1007, Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Topical Ivermectin + Iota-Carrageenan in the Prophylaxis against COVID-19 in Health Personnel, https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf.

14.Carvallo (C) et al., NCT04425850, Usefulness of Topic Ivermectin and Carrageenan to Prevent Contagion of Covid 19 (IVERCAR), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04425850.

15.Chaccour et al., Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-116547/v1, The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with mild COVID-19: a pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-116547/v1.

16.Chachar et al., International Journal of Sciences, 9:31-35, doi:10.18483/ijSci.2378, Effectiveness of Ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Patients, https://www.ijsciences.com/pub/article/2378.

17.Concato et al., NEJM, 342:1887-1892, doi:10.1056/NEJM200006223422507, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm200006223422507.

18.Deaton et al., Social Science & Medicine, 210, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005, Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617307359.

19.Deng, H., PyMeta, Python module for meta-analysis, http://www.pymeta.com/.

20.Elgazzar et al., Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-100956/v2, Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v3.

21.Elgazzar (B) et al., Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-100956/v2, Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v3.

22.Espitia-Hernandez et al., Biomedical Research, 31:5, Effects of Ivermectin-azithromycin-cholecalciferol combined therapy on COVID-19 infected patients: A proof of concept study, https://www.biomedres.info/biomedi..-proof-of-concept-study-14435.html.

23.Gorial et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.07.07.20145979, Effectiveness of Ivermectin as add-on Therapy in COVID-19 Management (Pilot Trial), https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.20145979v1.

24.Hashim et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.26.20219345, Controlled randomized clinical trial on using Ivermectin with Doxycycline for treating COVID-19 patients in Baghdad, Iraq, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.26.20219345v1.

25.Hellwig et al., International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106248, A COVID-19 Prophylaxis? Lower incidence associated with prophylactic administration of Ivermectin, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304684.

26.Khan et al., Archivos de Bronconeumología, doi:10.1016/j.arbres.2020.08.007, Ivermectin treatment may improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030028962030288X.

27.Lee et al., Arch Intern Med., 2011, 171:1, 18-22, doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.482, Analysis of Overall Level of Evidence Behind Infectious Diseases Society of America Practice Guidelines, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/j..nternalmedicine/fullarticle/226373.

28.Mahmud et al., Clinical Trial Results, NCT04523831, Clinical Trial of Ivermectin Plus Doxycycline for the Treatment of Confirmed Covid-19 Infection, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04523831?view=results.

29.McLean et al., Open Forum Infect. Dis. September 2015, 2:3, doi:10.1093/ofid/ofv100, Impact of Late Oseltamivir Treatment on Influenza Symptoms in the Outpatient Setting: Results of a Randomized Trial, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4525010/.

30.Niaee et al., Research Square, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-109670/v1, Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: A randomized multi-center clinical trial, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-109670/v1.

31.Nichol et al., Injury, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.03.033, Challenging issues in randomised controlled trials, https://www.injuryjournal.com/article/S0020-1383(10)00233-0/fulltext.

32.Podder et al., IMC J. Med. Science, 14:2, July 2020, Outcome of ivermectin treated mild to moderate COVID-19 cases: a single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled study, http://imcjms.com/registration/journal_abstract/353.

33.Rajter et al., Chest, doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.10.009, Use of Ivermectin is Associated with Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 (ICON study), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012369220348984.

34.Shouman et al., NCT04422561, Use of Ivermectin as a Prophylactic Option in Asymptomatic Family Close Contacts with Patients of COVID-19, https://clinicaltrials.gov/Provide..cs/61/NCT04422561/Prot_SAP_000.pdf.

35.Soto-Becerra et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.10.06.20208066, Real-World Effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and ivermectin among hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Results of a target trial emulation using observational data from a nationwide Healthcare System in Peru, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.06.20208066v1.

36.Spoorthi et al., IAIM, 2020, 7:10, 177-182, Utility of Ivermectin and Doxycycline combination for the treatment of SARSCoV-2, http://iaimjournal.com/wp-content/..oads/2020/10/iaim_2020_0710_23.pdf.

37.Sweeting et al., Statistics in Medicine, doi:10.1002/sim.1761, What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse data, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.1761.

38.Treanor et al., JAMA, 2000, 283:8, 1016-1024, doi:10.1001/jama.283.8.1016, Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Neuraminidase Inhibitor Oseltamivir in Treating Acute Influenza: A Randomized Controlled Trial, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192425.

39.Vallejos et al., Coronavirus in Argentina: Warnings and evidence on the consumption of ivermectin against Covid-19, https://totalnewsagency.com/2020/1..de-ivermectina-contra-el-covid-19/.

40.Zhang et al., JAMA, 80:19, 1690, doi:10.1001/jama.280.19.1690, What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/188182. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 05:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the feedback. Are there any articles about fact checking websites fact checking wrong? If so, feel free to post some URL's on this talk page. If not, then this might be against our original research policy. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Here is an article regarding problematic conflicts of interest of fact checking websites: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/?sh=4d36051e227f
 * I think a claim that anything is a "miracle drug" is ipso facto misinformation, but the precise situation is set out at Ivermectin. We are not saying anything unusual in the article here: APNews is being cited simply to source a statement about how a video went viral. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , Saying that a drug is a miracle drug does not make it ipso facto misinformation - that is the main problem with most fact checking sites - they latch onto a single point of a statement that they might be able to "debunk" and then discard the whole statement as "fake news", much as was done to the huge list of scientific studies that has just been marked as "fake" right here without giving any references or motivation as to why these studies should be disregarded. If a cheap and safe drug is found that merely reduces the probability of contracting COVID by 20% it can be argued to be a miracle drug, especially to those 20% of people that will not die and their families. While it does appear that with the correct dosing Ivermectin provides a much higher level of protection.
 * Regarding the existing wikpedia article on Ivermectin, it is also falsely detracting from the effectiveness of Ivermectin. It references a slightly outdated meta-analisys of only 4 studies that actually showed Ivermectin is effective at all stages of disease and uses that reference as motivation for saying "There is only very weak evidence of ivermectin's benefit when used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19; there is no evidence for people with severe disease".
 * while the actual meta analysis in the study found: "The overall  result  suggests  that there  was  a  statistically  significant  reduction  in  all-cause mortality with the additional use of ivermectin compared to usual therapy only (P=0.04).Since  the  search  period  mentioned  in  our  protocol registered  on  PROSPERO  was  from  inception  till August 31, 2020, data from the study by Hashim et alhas not included in the primary meta-analysis as this trial was published in the preprint server in October 2020  (21).  In  this  study,  out  of  140  COVID-19 patients,  70  were  randomized  to  receive  ivermectin plus  standard  treatment  and  the  rest  70  received standard   treatment   only.   In   the   ivermectin   plus standard treatment arm, the mortality was 2 compared to   6  in   the   standard  treatment   only   arm.   As   a secondary analysis, when this study was included, the test for heterogeneity for the pooled studies was not significant  (Chi2=0.45,  df=2,  (P=0.80),  I2=0%)  and pooled  OR  was  0.50  (95%CI:  0.29  to  0.88).  This suggested  that  addition  of  ivermectin  significantly reduced the mortality (P= 0.02)."


 * The meta-analysis is actually very positive for the use of Ivermectin especially in early treatment, but it is made out to say that it is not the case.


 * Finally, if the APNews article is only to source a statement about how a video went viral, where is the reference that is used to "prove" that it is actually fake news that Ivermectin is a very compelling treatment for Covid that could already have saved thousands of lives?
 * Miracles aren't real. And your commentary on PMID 33227231 fails to account for the very low quality of the evidence. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You are going to dismiss a panel of medical experts's opinion on their representative's colloquial use of the word miraculous? You are (and wikipedia in general) really showing a strong bias on this topic. Quoting media outlets unfounded claims that the testimony of experts in their field amounts to "promote fringe theories" but not willing to quote real scientific studies showing the effectiveness of a drug because it is not of sufficient quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Have a read of this review: URGENT COVID-19 information, I presume the Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy is also a quack and once again, the APNews`s fact checker BEATRICE DUPUY's former experience at Teen Vogue makes her opinion ("AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.") carry more weight than these respected doctors and experts in their fields. I really cannot see how it can be ethical for Wikipedia to quote an APNews article to shape peoples opinion regarding a pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As soon as I read this, I founded the Evidence-based Medicine Super-Consultancy and the Extremely-Evidence-based Great Medicine Super-Duper-Consultancy. I am director of both now and I am telling you you are wrong.
 * There are less than a thousand Google hits for "Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy". Seems to be not very well-known. Let's wait until we can tell from secondary sources if they are a reliable source, OK? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have the same level of mistrust of the author of the APNews article? If you actually do some investigation you will find that Theresa A Lawrie actually has a PhD and that she has 110 publications going as far back as 1996. You will also note that the Evidence-based Medicine Super-Consultancy has a lot of previously published work, easily found on their website https://www.e-bmc.co.uk/ under "work" section. You will also note that their domain was registered 2013-10-02, so not yesterday.Adriaandh (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a self-published website from a one-director UK limited company, in business as a consultancy. Obviously not suitable for anything on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * +1. Completely unsuitable for Wikipedia.Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, so let's keep objectively easily provable completely false "fact checking" articles from a fashion critic up as factual and correct, but let's not take a respected medical research company as a "second source" — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Respected by you and who else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup. Advocates are learning to make their stuff look like journal articles (and expect a rise in fake "fact checked" woo). Out there on the internets there is a huge swell of "I want to believe" ivermectin believers. But the reputable science is what it is, and as Wikipedia relays. Fortunately some high-quality studies are underway and the WHO is set to analyse them soon - Wikipedia can then report that. Until then it is imperative Wikipedia is not waylaid by irrational enthusiam. Alexbrn (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am glad Alex you moved this out IVM atricle, and i wont repeat what i said there. I still think you are not NPOV with the AP vs FLCCC dispute. In the internet(S?) you will find high quality studies: Let me briefly summurize the Bangladesh study: 180 receive STND treatment, 3 die. 180 receive IVM+STND treatment 0 die, 2 get isofagitis. This study may have costed 0-1-2-3 lives. This is peer reviewed and significant result: Ask the survivors about miracles. So any honest and peer reviewed researh is above any AP article or an Oncologist(!). I am glad you didn't include the South African position too. I am sorry and offended for the slanderous term quacks. I would not consider WHO as a highly trusted source, given their VERY late declaration of pandemic. Regardless the, as of 1/14/2021, neutral stance of NIH wrt IVM, @FDA still advises against it. Actually they state that they "fund N€W interventions in the CTAP (accelerated approval) research". If its old (GCAS)safe and cheap treatment: ignore and let them die policy? Where is the USA/EU funded high quality research? That is a "mirracle"! Artemon ge (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You are citing unreliable sources, see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines, by which the WHO is super-reliable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC).
 * Is the APNews a reliable medical journal?Adriaandh (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable news source, and its being used to source news. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Aremon actually slightly understates the case. If you read carefully, the USFDA position on the use of Ivermectin for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 is that the ANIMAL FORMULATION of Ivermectin should not be used for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in humans. The word "Ivermectin" is not qualified but the products they are discussing are for "Animal & Veterinary". Ivermectin has the full USFDA approval for use in humans for all indications. The USFDA is a regulatory body. Their function is to approve or disapprove new drugs/devices. They do not provide guidance to physicians or patients on the best treatment options. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No drug has "full USFDA approval for use in humans for all indications". None – not even aspirin.  Marketing approval (what the drug company is legally allowed to advertise the drug for) is always specific to the named indication(s) (an 'indication' is what science says the drug actually works for.  Sometimes the FDA approval matches the scientific indications, and sometimes it doesn't).  The fact that it's legal to prescribe drugs off-label (that is, the FDA gives approval for marketing the drug for Scaryitis, but your doctor prescribes it to you for headaches) does not mean that the FDA has approved it for headaches, or for anything other than Scaryitis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Train attack on hospital ship
I've removed the blurb about the train attack on the hospital ship, because it's not really "misinformation". The attacker might have been under the influence of some misinformation (or, I don't know, Paranoid delusions?), but the attack itself isn't misinformation, and there hasn't been any misinformation about the attack (that I know of). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin section
The entire section is not written from a WP:NPOV. There is a wealth of information indicating that Ivermectin is effective both as a prophylactic medication and as a treatment in all phases of COVID-19. Today the NIH revised their position on Ivermectin, removing their guidance that doctors should not prescribe ivermectin except as part of a clinical trial, replacing it with a neutral stance, saying "currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19". This is the same status as convalescent plasma. This section needs to be rewritten from a NPOV, stating that Ivermectin is being used in many regions of the world, and that it is being researched. Tvaughan1 (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not approved by FDA; NIH say evidence is too poor to decide anything; latest MEDRS reviews say the same. These are the kind of WP:MEDRS we use. For the "infodemic" aspect, we have a good SBM piece about how it's being touted on the internets as a "miracle cure". Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tvaughan1. The physicians who testified to the US NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel issued a press release. They state that Ivermectin is now a treatment option for COVID-19 in the US as it has been in many nations around the world. If Ivermectin in COVID-19 is misinformation, the USNIH is the primary source of that misinformation. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this page is to report on misinformation, not propagate it! Please stop linking to such sites. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Can whoever reverted my reference to the financial times article as counterpoint to the misinformation please explain why that is not a relevant or reliable source, while the blog post of dr Gorski is? The one is from a specialist in this field doing actual research on the subject, while the other is just a doctor with an online following making unsubstantiated claims. Adriaandh (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The ft.com is not even about misinformation; the Science-Based Medicine piece is. What is more, the FT piece was cherry picked and used to for biomedical content, for which it is unreliable. For the current state of knowledge on ivermectin and COVID-19, see our ivermectin article. Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology
Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology

https://web.archive.org/web/20210116010946/https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BE21:7200:0:0:0:3 (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Origin of Covid-19 has not been conclusively established, contrary to the conclusory statements in the "Origin Misinformation" section
There are a number of articles from legitimate sources, including articles published this month (January 2021) questioning whether Covid-19 may have been an engineered/manipulated virus based on SARS-CoV-2. The conclusion that it was a natural occurring virus has not been conclusively established and stating so seems to be an attempt to stifle inquiry into the subject. I suggest that the tone of the article, and this section in particular be modified.

IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources? doktorb wordsdeeds 08:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * He doesnt need sources to protest a removal. And there were already sources, but an account named User:Alexbrn killed the entire section "Bio-engineered virus" on 10 January with a dubious explanation. Lets put it back in. Alexpl (talk)

Spinning off accidental leak theory
The lab leak hypothesis has gained significant attention from government, academic and media organizations, which I have included in a draft for a new entry on the subject. Just in the past few days, a number of media organizations have published articles on the subject, sparked by an exchange reported between US and UK government officials (see here). There are already a number of academic pre-prints from reputed scientists, which I have cited in my draft, so this theory can no longer be considered as "misinformation" and doesn't belong in this article. Some scientists have said that given the lack of evidence for a zoonitic jump over 12 months on, the theory of an accidental lab leak is just as plausible, if not more credible. It is certainly not misinformation, but the subject of academic debate, and ongoing investigation that is likely being blocked by the Chinese government. New York Magazine published a 12,000-word cover story yesterday, in which the author says "Proposing that something unfortunate happened during a scientific experiment in Wuhan — where COVID-19 was first diagnosed and where there are three high-security virology labs, one of which held in its freezers the most comprehensive inventory of sampled bat viruses in the world — isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s just a theory. It merits attention, I believe, alongside other reasoned attempts to explain the source of our current catastrophe."

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Sun? The Daily Mail? That's some seriously bad sourcing in that draft. Wikipedia is meant to reflect "accepted knowledge" and the only accepted knowledge as regards a leak, from RS, is that it's a tiny possibility, but there is no good evidence supporting it. A spin-off article would be a WP:POVFORK as we need to contextualize this within the framing of misinformation, to remain neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Sun and the Daily Mail, and The New York Post (and more recently also Fox News) pieces quote an exchange that occurred between US government official (National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger), and UK government officials (such as Iain Duncan Smith), and that story is just one among many cited. If we were to focus just on this story, these publications are more than sufficient to qualify for Reliable sources. If you say the lab leak is a "tiny possibility" then it seems you haven't read the draft, or any of the supporting material, including carefully researched and written scientific pre-prints, and the fact that there isn't any evidence is very much beside the point, as it is a theory (as the title may suggest) and is now being discussed in government organizations, academic institutions and media publications. It should also be noted that a Zoonitic jump as a theory isn't proven, and there is no evidence to prove it, in the form of an intermediate host or virus. If the lab leak theory is now being considered as a plausible possibility, it shouldn't be considered as misinformation, and I don't see how a new entry should be considered as a WP:POVFORK. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Sun and the Daily Mail, and The New York Post (and more recently also Fox News)" ← That clinches it. These are all junk sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "If we were to focus just on this story, these publications are more than sufficient to qualify for Reliable sources." What is that supposed to mean? WP:RSP lists all three sources as unreliable. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are nitpicking. The entry has a significant body of supporting material, citing government, academic and media sources. WP:RSP does not outright ban those sources, and the Mail's article directly quotes British MP Iain Duncan Smith recounting a conversation with US National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger, which provides context to the larger debate behind the theory and is not cited as verifiability. As WP:RSP stipulates, Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. The theory of an accidental lab leak, has also been reported on a number of other media publications which can hardly be considered unreliable sources, and they include The Boston Magazine, the BBC, The Times, Le Monde, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker Magazine (all from the past few weeks). Whereas, the accidental lab leak section of this page provides little background behind the theory and some of the supporting material, such as the Vox article is dated from back in April, and also conflates the issue with Li-Meng Yan claims (conflates accidental lab leak with deliberate lab leak). The theory of an accidental lab leak deserves an entry of its own and should not be considered as misinformation. - ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now also New York Magazine. Green at WP:RSP. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that reliability depends on context. New York Magazine is not a scientific journal, and the author of this piece is a writer with no scientific training, who is better known for his erotic novels. One of the virologists whom NY Magazine contacted to fact-check the piece, Vincent Racaniello, apparently told the magazine that the article was "science fiction" (as Prof. Racaniello explained on his virology podcast). We should not be relying on the popular press for scientific information. Peer-reviewed articles in high-quality journals are what are used to determine the weight of scientific opinion, WP:FRINGE, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When editors indiscriminately throw up potential references, something's very wrong. Sanctions apply here.
 * I suggest clearly listing potential refs, making sure that they don't outright fail the current consensus for reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "mud". These are not potential references, but actual references. Please read the draft, where the references are listed. The issue here isn't references, but the fact that a plausible scientific theory is being labeled as misinformation. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I took a look at your draft with an open mind, and even started making some edits to it. It didn't look bad. But then I spot checked a few sentences and found copyvios. Copyvios are against policy. Everything must be paraphrased to be used on Wikipedia. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the draft. The only edits you made were to group multiple sections and tag the entire article with a copyvio instead of the offending section. I would like to request that you remove the tag on the article and instead tag the specific section so that other readers can review the main body of the draft. And since you are participating in this discussion, I would also appreciate if you can weigh in on my proposal to spin-off this topic to a new entry, as a number of other Wikipedians, some long archived, have made the same proposal, without consensus reached. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors need to be far more careful, as sanctions apply with this topic. --Hipal (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a "scientific theory", and doubtfully plausible. Alexbrn (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * According to David Relman, Professor of Microbiology & Immunology at Standford University, it is a plausible origin scenario and he has argued that it must be "systematically and objectively analyzed using the best available science-based approaches". He is not the only expert coming to this conclusion with respect to this scenario being plausible, there are many listed in the recent New York Magazine article. I'd suggest the threats of sanctions against the editor need to be toned down in favor of applying critical reasoning skills to the content referenced and better constructive criticism of the suggested edit. Dinglelingy (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * huh, that's an odd response. Are you (now blocked)? Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not and I do not appreciate the completely unfounded and inaccurate accusation. Seems my suggestions were ignored. A reminder of the rules:  Assume good faith,  Be polite and avoid personal attacks, Be welcoming to newcomers. I suggest you follow them. Dinglelingy (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have made your positions very clear; you believe that the accidental lab leak theory is neither "scientific" nor "plausible". You believe that despite contrary opinions from reputed scientists interviewed by reliable sources, the theory should remain in an article as another item of misinformation relating to Covid-19, and that a spin-off article would be a WP:POVFORK. You have said that the sources I provided don’t meet WP:RS yet you haven't replied to the point I made that the The Boston Magazine, the BBC, The Times, Le Monde, The Washington Post, and the The New York Magazine have also covered this topic. In reaching a consensus on this issue, your position should be considered, but I would like to ask that you tone down your rhetoric and refrain from personal attacks, such as accusing me of sockpuppetry and gloating over my (unfair) 24-hour ban. I am not the first user to bring up this issue, and nor will I be the last. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no tangible evidence of this "theory", and per Wuhan Institute of Virology, there are serious virologists who refute it as junk. Trying to paste-in chatter and conjecture from sources to support a such "theory" will not work on Wikipedia. I see an equally long dispute and discussion on this subject on the Talk page of the Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the same points have been made to you, and are not being listened to. At some point, WP:IDHT begins to apply, and with consequences. It is a giant waste of time to try and use Wikipedia as the platform to make a "theory" (especially ones tinged with "conspiracy"), into a "fact". Britishfinance (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Current scientific consensus is that there is currently no tangible evidence for any origin theory. As such, some scientists have said that the accidental lab leak theory should be considered, such as Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson in this paper (which was quoted in the New York Magazine piece), and many scientists who favor the zoonitic jump theory, still say that that the lab leak theory cannot be ruled out, such as Ralph Baric, who is clearly quoted in the New York Magazine as saying “Can you rule out a laboratory escape? The answer in this case is probably not.”. I am not seeking to make this theory into a fact, but it is a plausible and credible scientific theory, as described by the numerous reliable sources I provided, which in turn quote from numerous prestigious scientists. If there were as many reliable sources reporting on a possible alien landing in London or a secret ring of pedophiles in New York, then those stories too would have to be reflected here in Wikipedia, as per WP:RS. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that you call content on a howling conspiracy theory website a "paper" is further evidence of the disjoint between this proposal and reality. It's not a "scientific theory" (have you read that article?); it's at best a hypothesis, though it might also be a conspiracy theory. Of course it can't be ruled out; neither can the "hypothesis" that the virus came to earth on a meteorite. Alexbrn (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The paper by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson on what you call the "howling conspiracy website" was quoted in an article which cleared the editorial process of the New York Magazine, a publication which meets WP:RS by any standard. The scientists and their paper were also quoted in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists's online edition, but that is beside the point, as they, and numerous other scientists, were quoted in a number of other mainstream media sources which meet WP:RS, unlike anyone who proposed that the virus came from meteorites or 5g towers. In addition to be covered in the Boston Magazine and the New York Magazine, an accidental lab leak as a possible origin scenario of SARS-CoV-2 has also been covered extensively in the BBC, The Washington Post, The Times, Bloomberg, Presadiretta and Le Monde. Do you agree that these sources meet WP:RS, or do you perhaps think instead that the text of the changes I am seeking to make to this article are based on taking the sources out of context and violating WP:NOR, or is there some other Wikipedia Guideline violation you have in mind? I know your position is that lab leak is a conspiracy theory and you know that my position is that it is a scientific theory, which puts us in disagreement, but we must reach a consensus-based on Wikipedia policies. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not link to dodgy web sites with Bill Gates conspiracy theories. I think you are getting into a WP:PROFRINGE spiral which will likely end in your being banned. Alexbrn (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are being quite condescending. Do you agree that the sources I provided including the New York Magazine, Boston Magazine, Bloomberg, The BBC, The Washington Post, The Times, Le Monde and RAI meet the criteria in WP:RS as reliable sources, or do you perhaps think instead that the text of the changes I am seeking to make to this article are based on taking the sources out of context and violating WP:NOR, or is there some other Wikipedia Guideline violation you have in mind? If you are unable to answer this question, we should request dispute resolution. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your link to an obvious conspiracy theory website shows that 's earlier concern at your unblock request that you should be topic banned is well-founded. I am concerned that if NinjaRobotPirate checks, who has been pushing the same material on Wuhan Institute of Virology, that more substantive action may be appropriate. You now have consumed large amounts of editing time constantly pushing theories regarding COVID lab leaks on Wikipedia (i.e. WP:NOTHERE territory). Britishfinance (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Britishfinance - Wow, unbelievable! I have had enough of these type of attacks. Admins, this is the second editor who has blatantly violated the fundamental rules of Assume good faith, Be polite, and avoid personal attacks in reference to my account.  As this page is sanctioned I request immediate action to discourage others from using this means of discrediting my account as well as other editors to facilitate their point of view.  This is totally unacceptable behavior. ,Boing! said Zebedee The only thing I have been 'pushing' is for adherence to Wikipedia standards of behaviour and consistency in the editorial process.  I do not agree with all of ScrupulousScribe's arguments/sources, but I do agree with his concerns about consistency in sourcing requirements and maintaining a NPOV on the topic.  Too many of you are piling on to dismiss him out of hand rather than working with him on acceptable updates.  I have tried to facilitate consensus on those points in the most appropriate place as anyone with a NPOV will agree with if they read my comments.  The whole reason I got involved in this discussion was because of inappropriate behavior on this page, inappropriate behavior that unfortunately has continued with editor's like Britishfinance throwing around threats,  and personal attacks.  Everyone should be ashamed by this behavior and in allowing it to continue. Dinglelingy (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please can you clarify on the "link to an obvious conspiracy theory website"? I have cited a number of very well reputed publications that have dedicated serious editorial resources to airing the accidental lab leak theory as a possible origin of Covid-19. I would also appreciate if you didn't accuse me of sockpuppetry, as I am by no means the first user to object on this issue, and there has never been a consensus reached (and I will probably not be the last). Wikipedia Policy requires you assume good faith, be polite and avoid personal attacks. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We can add WP:SEALIONING to the list; I will leave it to the admins to quickly check the sources you provided above – post your block – to decide. Britishfinance (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You accuse me of linking an "obvious conspiracy theory website" and then you accuse me of trolling (Sealioning?) when I asked you which one? You are merely trying to discredit me instead of arguing my point. I have consistently argued that the lab leak theory cannot be considered as misinformation based on articles from reliable sources. Bfore that, you claimed that there "serious virologists who refute it as junk", but you can't prove it with sources confirming to WP:MEDRS, to which you retorted that I am taking up large amounts of time in order to push conspiracy theories (which didn't address my point). You have neither pointed out which "conspiracy theory website" you falsely accused me of linking to, nor provided evidence that "serious virologists" consider the accidental lab leak theory to be "junk". ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the "not ruling out" thing was explained by Valjean above: "Ummm.....that's the nature of all scientific statements…". Read it. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The "thing" that Valjean explained above is a violation of WP:NPOV. He says things such as leaks can never be ruled out completely, and when scientists feel compelled to mention it, that mention is just filler, and like Alexbrn, he doesn't address what to do when a whole bunch of mainstream media sources that meet WP:RS give credence to the lab leak theory. As Wikipedians, we don't get to pick what we like from what scientists say, and present as fact what we believe to be so. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact the ability to understand, digest, sift and summarize material for "translation" into a lay encyclopedia is an important skill. Alexbrn (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You also conveniently ignored my rebuttal to that point: "Since it's the majority position in the scientific community that the lab leak theory can't be ruled out..." Read it. JustStalin (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers to use high-quality sources (academic, secondary, peer-reviewed) rather than indulge in the tittle-tattle and gossip found in lesser publications. That's how we know what mainstream scientific knowledge is. Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We had a similar discussion about the lab leak theory a few months ago at the Covid 19 entry. The consensus there was that it should be considered a fringe theory, at least until and if new evidence came up indicating the contrary.  I have been looking at the references provided by ScrupulousScribe, and they do seem to bring forth evidence of a change in the  scientific position on the lab leak theory over the last few months.  I propose that we discuss them here in the talk pages on an individual basis. In that discussion, we should only cite MEDRS (when referring to biomedical statements) and RS (when referring to non-biomedical statements), of course.   Forich (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to tell exactly what people want done here. It would be helpful if they laid out a clear and concise argument at the appropriate noticeboard (WP:SPI, WP:ANI, etc). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ScrupulousScribe, this topic being biomedical it needs to follow the stricter sourcing requirements of WP:MEDRS, which tabloid newspapers assuredly do not. We need to base articles like the one you are proposing on high-quality sources such as peer-reviewed review articles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think this topic can be considered biomedical information. The idea of WP:MEDRS as it pertains to biomedical information is to address medical claims, such as the alleged benefits of injecting coffee up one's rectum (see Coffee enema), which I am sure you would agree should require well sourced peer reviewed studies to meet WP:V standards. In the case of SARS-COV-2 and its unknown origins, there are a number of possible scenarios, including a possible leak from a laboratory that was known to have collected and performed research on a number of coronaviruses (which has been covered extensively in a number of recent reports), and this has more to do with politics and diplomacy than biology or medicine. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a general comment, mostly for User:ScrupulousScribe, that rather than swinging for the fences with your current proposal, you might have better luck with something on "Chinese suppression of information related to covid-19" or similar. There is definitely a lot of good WP:RS on that topic., and see also Li Wenliang. In general on Wikipedia, when one is running into a lot of resistance to an attempt to do something, success is more likely if one tries to do something related, rather than persisting with the original idea. There are hazards with my proposal. For example, users might argue that it is a WP:POVFORK of the current article. I am unsure how that would be resolved. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There has certainly been some resistance (they now even want to ban me), but unfortunately, most of the discussion here has focused on Wikipedia policy, and has drawn in hostile editors who have faced off with conspiracy theorists earlier on in the year before the link between CoV/4991 from the Mojiang mine shaft and RaTG13 in the Wuhan Institute of Virology were confirmed (and subsequently verified). The virus is still raging, and the theory of an accidental leak will only receive more coverage in the news media, and in the dearth of evidence for any other origin scenario, calls will be made on the China government to provide more data, which is highly unlikely to be forthcoming, which will only fuel the controversy around the lab leak theory. While some editors here move to ban me (and others with my view), the discussion here has yet to reach a consensus, and in order to do so, it boils down to two or three key questions:
 * Does the lab leak theory meet the criteria laid out in Notability to warrant the creation of a new entry on the topic?
 * Should the entry be titled "Covid-19 lab leak theory" as scientific theory or should be named as "Covid-19 lab leak conspiracy theory" and presented as a conspiracy theory? There are plenty of entries scientific theories and conspiracy theories of note.
 * The most important question right now, as this also effects this article, is whether WP:MEDRS sources are required here, given that this topic is not Biomedical information. If not, then the reliable sources from the popular press should be sufficient to meet WP:V, though the entry would have be balanced as per WP:NPOV and give voice to those scientists who believe the scenario is unlikely.
 * ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just on one point of detail here. It's a common misconception that notable topics automatically get standalone articles. Per WP:NOPAGE it can often be the case that notable topics are best dealt with in combination with other topics. Alexbrn (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * True. That would seem to apply here; the topic is part of a larger whole and is most clearly presented as such. I'm also finding it hard to draw a dividing line and call this "not biomedical information". At the very least, the underlying reasons why we have such a high standard of scrutiny for medical sources also apply here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , this discussion has been drawn out so much, that you would be forgiven for not having read it all, but please be aware that there are sources meeting the criteria of WP:MEDRS that have been proposed, such as this peer-reviewed paper on BioEssays, written by a microbiologist specialising in generic modifications and a bioinformatics expert specialising in the analysis of a large volume of information. Furthermore, the (two) WP:MEDRS sources cited on this page and the Wuhan Institute of Virology do not justify calling the lab leak theory "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory". Those are the two sources here and here, and while the authors of this paper consider a zoonotic jump to be the most likely scenario, they specifically say that lacking evidence for the former scenario, other scenarios, such as an "accidental laboratory escape", do in fact "remain reasonable". If indeed this topic is Biomedical information, then WP:MEDRS should apply both ways, and appropriate sources should be provided to clearly distinguish the lab leak theory as "misinformation" or "conspiracy". Do you agree with this? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those sources are WP:MEDRS. We really want review articles (or better). Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * is correct here. For example, one paper in BioEssays that has been cited exactly twice, even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar, isn't worth basing any decisions upon. A conspiracy theory remains a conspiracy theory until extraordinary evidence forces a change of that evaluation. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We need proper secondary sources. Why are we flailing around with sub-par sources when high-quality WP:MEDRS is to hand, for example PMID 32945405 ? Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

break 1

 * There's biomedicine at the root of the claims, but some things - if, say, we wanted "the conspiracy theory took hold and spread through social media sites such as Parler" - wouldn't need MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yes — but judging the fundamental plausibility of the basic claim requires MEDRS, it seems to me. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 👍 Alexbrn (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of expanding information about the lab leak theory, but having it in its own independent entry is a bit risky. Readers who see such entry would lack the necessary flags that caution on it being a speculative hypothesis, and it would require huge amounts of work to word it in a manner that avoids politization.  A better option to me is to launch an independent entry for "Emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic" which can provide enough space for such alternative theories.  I have begun writing such entry, and a draft can be seen here. Forich (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The term "Origin" may work better, Forich. Also see Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 and RaTG13. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I considered using "Origin" but found it misleading for it is loaded as in "natural origin vs man-made origin", which is out of question (SARS-CoV-2 is definitely natural). Forich (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far. Do you mind if other users edit the draft, or would you prefer we send you our proposed changes instead? Law15outof48 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Law15outof48. I'd prefer to moderate first the edits to the draft, you can email them to me, or collect a few as a section in my talk page, or any other alternative you suggest is welcome as well.  Forich (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll just observe that labeling a lab origin as a conspiracy theory seems highly questionable at this point in time (although it was almost certainly appropriate several months ago when the original claims against this were made). You've got peer reviewed papers that point to it as a possibility. You've got Nature explicitly saying that a detailed investigation of that Wuhan laboratories is necessary for us to determine if it is the source. Also, the original claims that lab origin is impossible look exceedingly weak nearly a year later. Some of the most prominent claims boil down to the fact that the virus appears to have its origin in bats. Given that a lab less than a mile from the apparent start of the outbreak was carrying out gain of function research on the closest known natural relatives of COVID-19 (which also came from a bat), this does nothing to refute the possibility that one of the modified viruses escaped the lab. We also now know that there are serious conflicts of interest involving the scientists that rushed to declare a laboratory leak impossible. If anything, I would argue that claims that a laboratory leak can be ruled out are clearly misinformation that was propagated by obviously interested parties before there was sufficient time to study the matter. And yes, the fact that in all the world two laboratories were performing gain of function research on the closest known ancestor of COVID-19 and they are located in the same city where the outbreak occurred seems exceedingly relevant. If this is a coincidence (and it may be) it is a highly improbable coincidence. 72.89.56.239 (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, scientific research will not stop and investitators can keep investigating. This article is about minsinformation promoted in relation to COVID-19.   Assertions of uncertainty or "cannot be ruled out" are not meaningful (although personally I would have no problem with a single mention of uncertainty), until strong evidence is demonstrated (and for Wikipedia, strong sources widely report it).  In the event where a particular lab would have been shown to have accidentally been the source of a spreading event, the impact would also still have to be determined.  It would not change the fact that irrelevant conspiracy theories were promoted.  There would likely be a mention of the event, as mainstream reliable sources would report widely about it.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The U.S. State Department released intelligence yesterday that supports the claim that the coronavirus originated in a lab: Also, former Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger (not a "Trump loyalist") stated last month that evidence exists supporting that notion:  And it's possible that more information will be released: 1,2 It's silly to blanket-dismiss the lab origin theory off-hand as merely a "conspiracy theory". --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While Japan Times, unlike The Washington Times and Washington Examiner, is a RS, its source (the Trump administration) is not a RS and the article mentions that the Trump administration presents no evidence for their claim. I wouldn't trust this until many RS present it as a credible claim, rather than just the typical bluster and misinformation used by the Trump administration to threaten China. -- Valjean (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the US State Department a RS? link here Follow the science (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Harm caused by the vaccine
Going ahead and preemptively plopping this talk section here, regarding harm caused by the vaccine.

We definitely can't have content like "No one has died of [from] the vaccine" without MEDRS. I agree with the sentiment expressed that this section may not be needed at all. This seems to me like the kind of article to have content like the Bill Gates microchip conspiracy theory. Jdphenix (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry - please bear with me, am new to all this & hope I am contributing in the right bit. I was reading the Covid-19 misinformation section 'Vaccine misinformation' subheading 'infertility' and followed the link to footnote 290: Gorski DH (14 December 2020). "It was inevitable that antivaxxers would claim that COVID-19 vaccines make females infertile' (Science Based Medicine). I wanted to read the original petition that Yeadon & Wodarg wrote with this strange claim. Gorski's article has a link which does not work, to the original 43-page letter/petition. Unfortunately this means that the Wikipedia 'Vaccine misinformation' subheading 'infertility' section cannot be verified until this link is shown to work. I think that, although a detail, it is important to fix this problem, otherwise people who are misinformed may use it as evidence for their case. Thank you. Please redirect me to the correct bit if I have landed in the wrong section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalinaGardiner1 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be verified because that is what the source (an article in Science-Based Medicine) says. There is no reason to doubt this reliable source, and a lot of the original misinformation has gone from the web, for a variety of reasons. Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak yet again
is trying to edit war this edit in. This is meant to be an article about misinformation, not one which spreads it! Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There are 44.000 Wet Markets in China where the Virus could have emerged, but it was the one right next to that lab. No way in hell that this was pure coincidence. It's scary to see that Wikipedia does not even allows to discuss this as a hypothesis. 2003:C1:4F1D:F55:74C8:CCC2:B7F2:82E6 (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are discussing it, but we go with what the bulk of RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

UNESCO guide
I posted this guide at the top of the article. I think it is a reasonable candidate for media worth profiling. It has Creative Commons licensing, UNESCO has top authority as an organization for speaking on this topic, and so far as I know there are not other proposals for leading media.

This is a high-traffic article and I can imagine many readers wanting even more. This pamphlet is about 16 pages and gives a readable orientation to anyone thinking more about the issue.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  23:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Mcguy15 (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic → COVID-19 misinformation – The current name is a bit verbose. Per WP:CONCISE, I think it'd be a good idea to shorten it. Thoughts? If this is well received, I may open requested moves for some sub-articles too. Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments, Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States, Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China. These are all quite verbose and could be shortened. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title is semi-literate cringe. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I think the original idea was to have misinformation about the disease elsewhere, but now this article has everything anyway. --mfb (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This makes sense as it doesn't change the fundamental meaning or scope. -- Valjean (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Good idea. Britishfinance (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.

"Before the COVID-19 pandemic, no mRNA drug or vaccine was licensed for use in humans. "
Hi, I'm coming in from the article on RNA vaccine where this quote comes from. The issue is that this is an argument that convinces a lot of people who are against the use of the covid-19 vaccines. Can anybody help verify this quote and put it in relation to another quote "The use of RNA vaccines goes back to the early 1990s." Our national TV in Flanders has a topic dedicated on debunking false news on covid-19 and an article on this mRNA issue and there it states (translated from flemish)


 * "mRNA drugs (therapeutic vaccines) have been tested in more than 8 million people over the past decades. At the moment there is no evidence of the development of autoimmune diseases. Based on this information, we may assume that the use of the mRNA technology is justified. - Answer from Professor of Medicine Drew Weissman - best known for his work with RNA biology that laid the groundwork for the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 - to our question." - Thy and greetings from Belgium, :) SvenAERTS (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of attribution to Trump from the lead section
I am absolutely 0% pro-Trump or pro-Republican (I am Canadian and I support the Liberals), however, I thought that it would violate WP:NPOV to introduce the article by blaming most of the English COVID-19 misinformation on Trump in the lead section, so I removed that sentence from the lead. Let me know if you think there are any issues. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been well documented that he was as a major source of disinformation during the pandemic, so nothing non-neutral about including him.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with NiD.29. I saw this change in my watchlist and was going to re-add the removed content, but NiD.29 beat me to it. If somebody is the #1 driver of misinformation, in my opinion, that is a great argument for mentioning them in the lead of an article about misinformation. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the misinformation was not spread by Trump himself, but by his supporters, as well as Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, etc. Félix An (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the content of many of his tweets - disinformation in many cases actually originated with Trump, or had negligible spread until repeated by Trump - and was only then repeated by others including Epoch times, as is stated on that page. How many items on the page originated with Epoch Times/Falun Gong?&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * +1, the references and facts regarding Trump and misinformation are very notable and lede-worthy. Britishfinance (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The absurdity of calling the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis a debunked "conspiracy theory"
Respectfully, it's frankly difficult to overstate how absurd it is to call the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis a "debunked conspiracy theory". We simply do not have enough data to determine, with any degree of certainty, the origin of SARS-COV-2. This means one cannot, in good faith, dismiss the hypothesis that SARS-COV-2 was released (not necessarily intentionally, but perhaps accidentally through negligence) from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The virologists at the Wuhan Institute may have been performing "gain of function" research on some form of the coronavirus -- a common practice which the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy publicly warned against as recently as 2014. Bat-based coronaviruses, and the transmissibility thereof, have previously been the subject of laboratory experiments in China. Prior to the pandemic, U.S. Embassy officials warned about the risks of such infectious disease research being undertaken specifically in Wuhan, China. The veracity of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis with respect to SARS-COV-2 is presently being investigated by the World Health Organization.

Again, the hypothesis could be true or false. That's the entire point -- the hypothesis is being officially investigated, and we don't yet have enough data to either confirm or refute it. This means it's at least plausible. To refer to the hypothesis, as this entry on Wikipedia does, as a thoroughly debunked "conspiracy theory" is highly disingenuous (and it preemptively shuts down reasonable dialogue which society must have if we want to minimize the odds of history repeating itself).

I respectfully assert that the above-referenced portion of the entry should be reworded or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:fe20:2390:a51d:4c1c:3842:5a79 (talk • contribs)


 * "We do not know the exact source" doesn't mean we can't rule out some options. I don't know where my pen was made but I can rule out it was made on Jupiter. As for how we can rule out a lab leak, see the sources in the article. --mfb (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to follow the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources in the article refute the lab leak hypothesis. It has not been refuted (and is presently being officially investigated by the WHO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FE20:2390:E55D:8149:E415:EEA2 (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above commenters. The only source purporting to "debunk" the theory is, as far as I can tell, just a list of people who disagree with the theory. I'm putting the Template:Failed verification ; Although my opinion would be to remove the section altogether.Yitscar (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Second. The lab leak is a theory and it has not been debunked. The section on the lab leak theory is also woefully inadequate in size and scope.--NortyNort (Holla)


 * , a WHO official made a statement this morning, stating the lab leak hypothesis is an extremely unlikely pathway for COVID-19 and will not require further study as part of their work in studying the origins of the virus. . Keep an eye out for newspaper articles on this later today. – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post on the viability of a lab leak and gain of function research and why are peer reviewed papers being censored by Wikipedia?
Awhile ago one of the authors involved with these papers contacted me but I didn't look too hard since everyone at the time was saying the same thing; however, this Washington Post editorial over the weekend

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/05/coronavirus-origins-mystery-china/?arc404=true

reminded me of the fact there are several peer reviewed papers arguing for the viability of a lab origin that are not mentioned here. When the author first wrote me, he mentioned Wikipedia's clear and inarguable censorship of scientific research, and talked about working with reporters to expose Wikipedia's collusion with the CCCP to suppress the peer reviewed research.

Looking over Wikipedia's guidelines, it is beyond argument that passing peer review is the gold standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia page. Why have all of these articles below been excluded from Wikipedia entirely?

If it is not pressure from the Chinese government, what reason does Wikipedia have for excluding research that has past peer review in sound scientific publications?

These are the papers, in order of publication. They have all been peer reviewed, this is Wikipedia's gold standard, is it not? What is being missed here? I'm going to have the author send the reporters working on stories about Wikipedia doing direct censorship for the Chinese government to this page now, let's see how long it takes for these papers to be added to Wikipedia.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.26478

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000240

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fvl-2020-0390 Driftwood1300 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS. Peer review is not "the gold standard", but one factor. In particular we need secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A number of possible sources appear WP:MEDRS compliant (I want to make it clear I’m not explicitly endorsing all the sources the new editor has brought to the table, some of those appear to be open and/or obscure) but I’m not sure of the value of including material that is inherently speculative. What I would support is a limited list of possible origins as laid out in something like Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review (Sallard et al, fourth from the top in the list above) without putting any undue emphasis on any given possibility. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Sallard et al article is a review, despite having ": a Review" tacked on to the title. It's a translation of PMID 32773024, here appearing in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal in English. I'd avoid that source when we have better. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Something passing peer review doesn't mean we need to add it. It must also be directly relevant, important enough, and it should be discussed in secondary sources (the importance is typically judged by secondary sources reporting about it). Threatening people with stories about an invented censorship in Wikipedia is a curious approach. --mfb (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Not threatening anything, the journalists coming to this page will be able to judge. He says his attempts to get the peer reviewed work onto Wikipedia were already wiped somewhere once, maybe he's lying, don't particularly care.

Please link where "other factors" than passing peer review are weighed, where is that in writing? That first paper is then cited by several other of the peer reviewed papers. Lots of peer review, but Wikipedia editors are getting too much money to ignore them or what?

Because that's exactly something someone doing censorship for the CCCP would just make up. Like I just got here, and Wikipedia is not vague: " An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)

Where on that page is your reasoning coming from?

All of those papers I linked have been peer reviewed. They are all published in respected science journals. Do you want to debate whether or not the authors are qualified? Okay, then what are your qualifications Mr. Anonymous Editor?

Right now Wikipedia is very obviously actively censoring the peer reviewed literature. Also the opinion of the Washington Post's Editorial Board? You guys have better judgement than them?

So what exactly are the credentials of the editors who are censoring all of these papers about gain of function research from Wikipedia?

Driftwood1300 (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You link to WP:SCIRS (which is just an essay), but as it says: "Cite reviews, don't write them". We really want review articles (or better) for weighty topics, and there are five or six on this very topic. See also WP:MEDFAQ for some guidance about why peer-review isn't enough. Alexbrn (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What is the rational of these anonymous Wikipedia editors for excluding all of the above peer reviewed research? This is beyond absurd, all of you are making a mockery of the scientific review process. Below are the editorial boards of the scientific journals which have approved the peer reviewed papers discussing a lab origin, so does Wikipedia just work by anonymous editors making up rules as they go?


 * This is publicly available information, these are the boards of scientists who approved the publication of these papers, what are the qualifications of the anonymous Wikipedia editors to keep this information off Wikipedia, other than being willing to accept CCP bribes?


 * I ask again: Who exactly are you to overrule the consensus of these three editorial boards? What is your rational for doing so? Three entire editoral boards agree to publish this information, but you nameless Wikipedia editors can censor whatever you want without reason? Absurdity.
 * https://www.springer.com/journal/10311/editors
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/10969071/homepage/editorialboard.html
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/15211878/homepage/2487_edbd.html
 * Driftwood1300 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe read WP:WHYMEDRS to understand why Wikipedia's rules are as they are. Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is beyond transparent that Wikipedia's editors are part of a coordinated effort to suppress the actual science, you are completely unable to provide any sort of reasoning as to why you are deciding on which peer reviewed literature to include. Here is another one: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202100017


 * Tedros has said everything is on the table: https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/12/all-hypotheses-still-on-the-table-over-covid-19-s-origins-who-chief-says . So again, what is the criteria the editors are using to exclude all of this peer reviewed research, if it is not their own personal bias and corruption? Also for reporters, here's a link to just how deep and systematic this corruption is in Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Soumyadipta/status/1235103428130398208?s=20

Driftwood1300 (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "reference" for some sort of conspiracy is a guy who got scammed by some unspecified agency, proving that you can lose money to scammers if you try to? I'm not sure what that's supposed to demonstrate about Wikipedia. --mfb (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis" article
Hello friends. COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis was moved out of draftspace today and may need some attention. I've added an NPOV tag, and I've started a talk page discussion. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's been redirected by . It's a definite WP:POVFORK and should not exist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, we'll see if this sticks. Per the general sanctions it really should not be reinstated without prior consensus. I notice it was moved from draft to mainspace by, and considering the known fringe issues with the topic, this seems potentially problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Billybostickson (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't need that here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan lab leak hypothesis is a scientific hyphothesis not a "conspiracy theory".
The possibility that Covid-19 originated from a Wuhan lab leak is not a "conspriacy theory", it is a scientific hypothesis. See the Cornell University pre-print paper submitted 7 Feb 2021 by several authors here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.03910 (and the 2 papers co-authored by Dr Alina Chan included in its bibliography), and the diverse list of scientists who agree the hypothesis deserves further consideration, published on 6 Feb 2021 in the Daily Telegraph UK newspaper, archived here: https://archive.vn/efmTs. Of note is that the list includes Dr Richard Ebright, who is wrongly included in this "misinformation" article among scientists who have "dismissed" the lab leak theory. On 9 February 2021 one of the authors of the Cornell paper, Yuri Deigin, co-created a wiki page on "Covid 19 lab leak hypothesis", but by 10 February 2021 someone has already edited that page so that it instantly re-directs to this "mis-information" article, which appears wrong for the reasons above.Leo Brennan (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Nothing productive can possibly come from using preprints, misrepresenting sources, not reading cited sources and ignoring science. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Ignoring Science"??? Is the WHO seriously the ONLY reliable source on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.166.109 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be great if whichever group is sending all these "new editors" to push the anti-conspiracy angle would have them read MEDRS first. A pre-print (not MEDRS) of a primary speculative article (not MEDRS) by a bunch of people with laughably irrelevant, very low, or literally zero scientific credentials (extremely unlikely to be MEDRS)* is just so clearly not going to be accepted by Wikipedia, so why waste everyone's time?


 * Rossana Segreto, PhD (2010?): technical assistant at U Innsbruck with 8ish publications in mycoheterotrophy, h-index of ~5, only relevant expertise is in phylogeny reconstruction in fungi and fungal barcoding.
 * Yuri Deigin: businessman with a CS/math bachelor's and MBA, only publication is a pro-lab-leak paper with Segreto, h-index of 1, zero background in science.
 * Kevin McCairn, PhD (2008): led a neurophysiology lab at the Korea Brain Research Institute for a few years before starting his own neuroscience consulting company (with a weirdly unfinished website and poor SEO), 17 papers and an h-index of 12, zero relevant expertise.
 * Alejandro Sousa, MD (1984): urologist with ~50 papers in urology, h-index of maybe 9?, zero relevant expertise.
 * Dan Sirotkin: prison blog writer with bachelor's in political science, only publication is pro-lab-leak paper with dad (Karl), h-index of 1, zero background in science.
 * Karl Sirotkin, PhD (1980s?): retired online research tools manager for NIH; 48 papers, all since 1990 related to different releases of NCBI databases/tools or info collected therein; h-index of 34; unclear if he has relevant expertise beyond using genetics software?
 * Jonathan Couey, PhD (2009): research assistant professor in neuroscience at Pitt, 17 papers in neuroanatomy/physiology, h-index of 15, no indication of relevant expertise.
 * Adrian Jones: "independent bioinformatics researcher", no information available=zero expertise
 * Daoyu Zhang: "independent genetics researcher"; only publications I could find are 1) a YouTube comment claiming there is "only...1 in 5346 chance that these 79 nucleotide mutations not changing a single amino acid within the 685-1124 sequence of the Covid-19 Spike protein when compared to RaTG13", as if that likelihood is impossibly small for a virus, and 2) a comment on a biorxiv paper on ACE2 evolution; no further information available=zero expertise.

JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I've not seen this reminder recently but that it's also a useful answer to the above often-asked questions, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia attempts to avoid presenting a false balance (WP:GEVAL is part of the WP:NPOV policy). Unless there was clear evidence of a leak and this was widely reported by reliable sources, speculating about incertitude is meaningless (and Wikipedia not for the WP:PROMOTION of undue divisive discourse or personal opinions).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 11:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also from WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone." (emphasis in original). Moreover, the guidelines state: "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." One could make a good faith argument that the editors stifling debate on the potential veracity of the lab leak hypothesis are in direct breach of these guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.38.132 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The lab leak hypothesis
The lab leak hypothesis should be it's own seperate article. This is because it does not belong in an article about misinformation, since it is a theory about the origin of COVID-19, not a "Conspiracy theory". A conspiracy theory would be that COVID was a plandemic that was manufactured so that the globalist elites can take over the world. however, the "Lab leak hypothesis" is NOT a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.166.109 (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a conspiracy theory according to multiple reliable sources, and per WP:NOPAGE it makes best sense here, among all the others kinds of misinformation around COVID-19. Alexbrn (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Would like to see what all these people are reading/seeing for there information. Like Ivermectin there seems to be a whole segment of the population that gets their information from obscure places.-- Moxy 🍁 16:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you search for lab leak hypothesis wikipedia on twitter, it's apparent there is a fair amount of agitation about Wikipedia's coverage of this, which may account for the uptick in less-than-productive editing there's been. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, on twitter, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is hailed by conspiracy theorists as the one example of Wikipedia getting it right. -Darouet (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which probably means that it's in dreadful shape. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * XOR&#39;easter I believe it may have been created as another POV fork. Unfortunately from what I can tell, its smallest section is devoted to what scientists currently think about likely SARS-CoV-2 origins in nature. -Darouet (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was, although it quickly enjoyed some scrutiny by experienced medicine editors to define its scope, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)