Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Kory's remark on ivermectin being a wonder drug

Can we confirm if Kory's use of the qualifier "wonder drug" is in the context of Covid-19? According to AP, Kory said: Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, described ivermectin as a “wonder drug” with immensely powerful antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents at the hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.. Kory made two separate statements there: i) ivermectin is a wonder drug, and ii) ivermectin has inmensely powerful antiviral agents. Depending on the context, each of those statements can be true.

In this MEDRS source, Ivermectin is described as a wonder drug, of course, for the treatment of nematode and arthropod parasites in animals, not for Covid-19 in humans. There are also plenty of sources that say that ivermectin DO have inmensely powerful virucidal activity, in vitro studies against chikungunya and covid-19.

Therefore, there is a possibility that AP quoted Kory out of context and we can be repeating and amplifying their mistake in this entry. Is there a wikipolicy for what seems to be going on in this case? Forich (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Pierre Kory, described ivermectin as a “wonder drug” with immensely powerful antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents, at the hearing - The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee heard from medical professionals who advocate for alternative COVID-19 treatments and mitigation measures to those of the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and World Health Organization.--Moxy- 20:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the CSPAN closed captioning is a super useful sanity check in these kinds of incidents, and no he wasn't misquoted by the AP. While Dr. Kory did indeed describe Ivermectin as already being miraculous for its other uses, he did so alongside describing it as miraculous for COVID-19 as well. THIS IS THREE TO FOUR MONTHS LATER. MOUNTAINS OF DATA HAVE EMERGED FROM ALL -- FROM MANY CENTERS AND COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, SHOWING THE MIRACULOUS EFFECTIVENESS OF IVRAMECTIN. IT BASICALLY OBLITERATES TRANSMISSION OF THIS VIRUS. IF YOU TAKE IT, YOU WILL NOT GET SICK. Something he insisted would pass peer-review, but it does not appear to have done so. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase Kory's statements. He said There is a drug [he is clearly referring to ivermectin] that is proving to be of miraculous impact]. He then cited Carvallo who prophylaxed 800 health workers in Argentina and of which not one got sick. Of the 400 they didn't prophylax 58% got sick. He then said that his group (FLCCC) had reviewed four RCTs totaling 1500 patients, showing that as a prophylaxis agent, ivermectin is "inmensely effective". In early treatment of outpatients' evidence, he said they reviewed 3 RCTs, and "multiple" observational studies and case studies, and they showed that "if you take it [ivermectin] the need for hospitalization will decrease. For hospitalized patients, Kory said they reviewed 4 RCTs, and "multiple" observational studies, showing [if you take ivermectin as prophylaxis] you will have "much lower death rates". Then he says that "all I ask for is for the NIH to review our data... all I am asking is that they review our manuscript". I think if those results he cited are true his conclusion that ivermectin "is proving to be of miraculous impact" is hiperbolic but not erroneous. Now, in hindsight, with new evidence and the results of peer review (did he publish the manuscript?), he may have proved to be wrong, but it is unfair to provide an ex post assesment, in my opinion, specially invoking WP:BLP. Forich (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Your paraphrase is partial and false. Kory was unequivocal and he was, according to sources then and now, spreading misinformation. Not sure where this push to give a pass to fraud & quackery is coming from? Alexbrn (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, like a lot of things relating to COVID-19, it's multifaceted. Not everything he said was misinformation. If Kory stopped with promising initial results and asking for review, I would agree with Forich. But he went beyond with claims that were not yet reviewed, as if they were certain to be proven true ("If you take [Ivermectin], you will not get sick [with COVID-19]."). Whether intended or not, Kory ended up producing misinformation which is persisting to this day. So long as we're clear about what's misinformation, who said it when, and reliably source it I don't see a BLP issue. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Following on from that, Dr. Kory is lead author of a meta-analysis in a MEDLINE journal which shows a treatment benefit.[1] Do we have good citations finding an issue with this study, and/or why it's in the minority of research findings? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That paper (and others) have been discussed ad nauseam on the Ivermectin Talk page. WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and most of the "positive" underlying research has since been found to be fraudulent. Alexbrn (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I figured that it would be discussed somewhere. Do we have any reliable sources we can cite for this? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine has multi-part coverage of this (e.g.[2]) However the real issue is that all the high-quality medical sources are aligned on ivermectin's lack of evidence, so this cannot be undercut with some minor outlier journal article which has been questioned in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional source

Interesting source of virologist testimony after being misquoted :

• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/07/virologist-work-anti-vaxxers-covid

Yug (talk) 🐲 14:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Use of the word false in one line of Antibody-dependent enhancement

I think this sentence should be clarified:

Nevertheless, anti-vaccination activists falsely cite ADE as a reason to avoid vaccination against COVID-19.

The cited sources for this line say that ADE has not happened but that ADE is a potentiality in the future. I would suggest the line be clarified to something along the lines of:

Nevertheless, anti-vaccination activists falsely claim that vaccination has lead to ADE as a reason to avoid vaccination against COVID-19.

Fullmetalalch (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, I see this as an encyclopedic summary and the alteration as unnecessary and weasel-y. Alien visitation and reptilian takeover of the US Senate have also not occurred and could theoretically occur in the future, but we don't waste words pretending they're viable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed MWFwiki (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I would just change it to:

Nevertheless, anti-vaccination activists cite ADE as a reason to avoid vaccination against COVID-19.

We don't know yet whether it's false or not, as the sources cited note. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

“Common cold and flu treatments”

“Treatment” section, “Common cold and flu treatments” sub-section —

“There were also claims that a 30-year-old Indian textbook lists aspirin, antihistamines, and nasal spray as treatments for COVID-19. The textbook actually talks about coronaviruses in general, as a family of viruses.”

This implies that none of these treatments are effective in treating COVID-19? I’m sure all three are used regularly. Did the book tout them as a cure?

Apart from this, COVID-19 is quite obviously a member of the coronavirus family. I’m just not sure what these two sentences are trying to say.

Could use a re-write, or at least a mention along the lines of, “while these treatments may be effective in combating certain symptoms, their efficacy in treating COVID-19 specifically is not proven.”

Thoughts? MWFwiki (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue, per the citation, was the claim: This [COVID-19] is not a new disease, it's been here for years mentioned in this textbook. So it's not so much a case of those being ineffective symptom treatments (though the post was also translated to a "cure", uncertain if that has the same connotations in Hindi), but claiming that coronaviruses in general being known for decades meant that COVID-19 was also circulating among humans for decades. Probably based on a simple misunderstanding around the common name at the time: "The Coronavirus". Perhaps this misinformation is a bit misplaced in the Treatments section, rather than Disease Spread. Though it might be a bit non-notable in the grand scheme of things. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see the potential for confusion in the previous wording. I've made an attempt at clarifying, so as not to imply that the treatments listed are ineffective at treating COVID-19 symptoms. I am not confident this example is major enough for inclusion here, but if it stays, I hope this edit improved clarity. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it implies that the claim the book talks about Covid is false, it does not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we need context, that’s all. Probably should mention precisely what the source claims, which is obviously false. I would focus more on this claim — the “COVID-19 has been around for decades” claim — rather than the “aspirin and antihistamines” claim, which isn’t inherently false (depending on the context). MWFwiki (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that say they are not?Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

From the CDC.[3] But it misses the point, they're recommended treatments for the common cold, which was what the book referred to. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven That asprin and antihistamines are not effective COVID-19 treatments? I think it's pretty well confirmed that asprin and antihistamines don't cure any virus-based illness. Do we really need to argue that point? It's just being contrarian. I even agree that we should mention that asprin & antihistamines should be mentioned as potential symptom treatments rather than totally dismissed.MWFwiki (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Population-control scheme

Please help me to find sources regarding what is being heard all over TVs in EU. Wispyrainon (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You need sources first, so as to respect WP:V. Currently it just looks like you are edit-warring unsourced nonsense into the article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense? You know it's full of sense and predicted yet. Anyway I do not agree you say edit-war since WP:CITE says an unsourced statement should be disputed before being removed. Wispyrainon (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll let someone else (admin?) deal with this but if you continue edit-warring you are likely to get sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

More relevant here: WP:BRD, WP:WAR. I cannot find the word "disputed" in WP:CITE. Please five an exact quote from there so other people do not have to manually dig through every sentence of a large page to find out what you might have referred to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

OK I'll find more sources even if they are not mandatory according to WP:CITE. Wispyrainon (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The now-supplied source has nothing to do with misinformation. I'm smelling troll. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

They are mandatory "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". As it has been challgend (and it was also obvious it would be challenged) it needs a cite. Note however that wp:or wp:v wp:rs and wp:undue all come into play too.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Wispyrainon I think there might be some confusion about what constitutes a reliable source here. You cannot draw a conclusion yourself and then provide a source for that conclusion, claiming it fits this article's topic. That's considered original research. Citations for this article must include information about a COVID-19 conspiracy theory in the cited source. Otherwise it does not fit here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Statements of Kerry Kary Mullis

The article is bad and incomplete in discrediting the warnings of Mullis and those who cite him.

“Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough.” Dr. Mullis was a strong advocate against using the PCR test as a means of diagnostics because cycle thresholds above 30 are unreliable. Additionally, he warned that we should never use this technique for diagnosis due to the complexity of the process and due to a relatively high rate of false positive results when administered to asymptomatic individuals.

[More in this interview: https://web.archive.org/web/20200110115958/http://aidswiki.net/index.php?title=Document:Farber_interviews_Mullis] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHuys (talk • contribs)

Further details of Mullis's crankery are at Kerry Mullis. Alexbrn (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure "AIDS Wiki dot net" is a super reliable source for what the AIDS-denialist thinks, but not much else. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Kerry Mullis doesn't seem to be notable anyway so I'm not sure his warnings matter. Kary Mullis well as Alexbrn sort of said see the article Kary Mullis. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Mullis, as a Nobel laureate, is definitely notable as a figure. This arguably makes anything we can reliably source as misinformation (especially its use by others as an appeal to authority) notable here. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Contact with fact checker newsroom ?

Hi there, i bumped into a misinformation "Taiwan Covid vaccines kills more than virus" online, spread by social medias, various pseudo-news websites, including right-wing neo-esoteric New Tang Dynasty channel and anti-vax Dr. Robert W. Malone with at least 15,000 retweets on Twitter alone. I inspected the falacy and fackchecked it on social media. But this is too recent and according to Google it haven't been fack checked yet by sources suitable has Wikipedia citation. I heard Wikipedia has a collaborations with external institutions on Covid misinformation. Also, do we have a channel where i could report that recent Taiwan misinformation so to accelerate the formal fact checking process by trustworthy (citable) institution. Thank. Yug (talk) 🐲 21:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOR comes into mind. We don't need to mention it if it has not been covered in independent sources. If it's, however, obvious bullshit, then we are allowed to call it out as such, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious_pseudoscience. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a case of VAERS data being used to suggest that "deaths after vaccines" are "deaths due to vaccines". This logic has been debunked for a hand of countries / earlier claims already. But Google for "Taiwan vaccine deaths" returns nothing (no fact checking from notable source) yet for this recent Taiwan occurence. Formal fact checking by relevant newsroom is required on the long run. Do we (Wikipedia) have some channel to request professional fact checkers action on a particular statement ? cc @Netha Hussain:. Yug (talk) 🐲 05:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

While a debunking for Taiwan specifically would be nice, I don't see the need to constrain such debunking geographically. This is a common misinformation tactic globally, and there's no reason to believe the mortality statistics are reversed only in Taiwan. Perhaps it's simpler to group all the adverse effect reports misinterpretations into a single category, and point out specific notable instances of the claim. I do find it interesting that we're entirely missing VAERS misinformation on the article. Here's a pair of Reuters fact-checks and a Science News article, all from the US. [4][5][6] Bakkster Man (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I barely been active on this Covid misinformation article, but I already met the VAERS misinformation online and documented it on National_Vaccine_Information_Center#Medalerts.org and in the article but it have been moved into COVID-19_vaccine_misinformation_and_hesitancy#Medically_based_claims

The same methological falacy of "death after vaccine" shifted into "death from vaccine" have been documented for 6 countries in this artcles. Yug (talk) 🐲 20:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I wrote a message to https://factcheck.afp.com/contact. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Yug (talk) 🐲 11:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

One English language fact checking publication as emerged (here). Needs better ones. Yug (talk) 🐲 14:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Stolen from Canadian lab

Canadian Food Inspection Agency#2012 brucella bacteria smuggling to China
COVID-19 misinformation#Stolen from Canadian lab
Winnipeg lab virus theft to Wuhan Institute of Virology

“The lifting of secrecy about the theft of viruses from the Winnipeg lab which were taken to Wuhan Institute of Virology in China would allow for a publicly available study on whether there is any link between that theft and the outbreak of COVID in Wuhan,” — David Matas[7][8]. ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• And of course, this is a debunked conspiracy theory. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is too long

The page currently has Too many sections and Very long templates attached. It is a long page, but reading the consensus at WP:Length, this topic is a candidate where a long page with lots of sections is justified. A number of sections are already split out into their own pages, and what remains needs to be here. The longest section without its own stand-alone page is COVID-19 misinformation#Ivermectin, but I think even that should stay here. Comments from other editors? Newystats (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Too long, in my opinion. There are 545 references, and with my user scripts this page takes 18 seconds to paint on my desktop computer. While I don't think the issue is so pressing that it needs to be acted on immediately, I do think that if this article were ever to go to GA, we'd probably want think about what to spin out and excerpt so that we could reduce the length. Some ideas might be sections with more than 10 subsections, or subsections with more than 1 paragraph. Spinning out also opens the door for covering things in more detail, without having to worry about making this article too long. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Too long just on prose size, which is (per the helpful tool for that) 92 kB (14608 words), well above the recommended range. There's some text which can be shortened, and trimmed of excessive details, but surely that won't account for 1/3 of the article length... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Too long. I typed a full response arguing the opposite and then changed my mind. I do think there are places where we can condense content. This is a halfway-serious proposal, but I think a good chunk of the Prevention section could be replaced with something like:
  False claims have spread suggesting that COVID-19 can be prevented by drinking alcohol, drinking hot drinks, eating vegetarian, practicing specific religions, smoking tobacco, snorting cocaine, mass disinfection using helicopters, clapping, eating cabbage, or eating the poisonous Datura fruit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Entry COVID-19 denialism needed

I think, after more than a year of vocal denial, radicalization and organized mis- and disinformation, a new entry COVID-19 denialism (currently a redirect on COVID-19 misinformation) is warranted. It's extremely important to have this entry about misinformation, but it's not the right place to describe organized opposition, radicalization and the violence and attacks on scientists, vaccination centers, health personal etc. Therefore in my opinion this should be described in a new entry that can also focus better on this kind of denial movement and its allies. There are already examples in Portuguese [9] and Spanish [10]. Andol (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Not true

"Social-media posts have falsely claimed that Kary Mullis, the inventor of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), said that PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 does not work." That is not at all what 'social media posts' have said. In reality most of the content was video(s) of Kary Mullis explaining why PCR is more or less useless in relation to 'testing' for a virus. PCR cannot do anything except amplify DNA/RNA (it's basically a molecular photocopier). Depending on the cycle threshold of the 'test' (which PCR was not designed for) ... You can find any virus you want if you prime it right. According to the inventor of PCR, Mullis. Maximum70 (talk)

From the Reuters Fact Check cited:

Social media users have been sharing a quote attributed to the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, currently being used to detect COVID-19, which says "PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all". This quote appears not to be a direct quote from the inventor, Kary Mullis ...

So, it's fine. Alexbrn (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not though. It's ridiculous. What a shame. Maximum70 (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you say so… Robby.is.on (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Mullis said so. But, hey, what did he know? Maximum70 (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Quote?Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That word

"her claims were labelled as misleading, unscientific, and an unethical promotion of "essentially conspiracy theories." How many times does this website plan to use those words? 'Conspiracy Theory'? It should not be included in an encyclopedia. NPOV? ... Maximum70 (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia likes to say that things are conspiracy theories when ... they are. That's part of what NPOV is. Alexbrn (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Citation? Maximum70 (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

What other Encyclopedia uses the term 'conspiracy theory' so often? It's like every other article. KEKW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximum70 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty citations in this very article. I suggest you calm down and read them. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

THis, read the sources, we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Information on toxicity

Newly published letter regarding toxic side effects of ivermectin. I was told it could be potentially useful here? Obama gaming (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It's just a letter but since it's in the NEJM and comes from the Oregon Health and Science University, it could be handy for those statistics it mentions. Alexbrn (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure really as we need to really have very tight control on sources here. I would rather wait for a much better source than a letter.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a highly localized and preliminary report (Avoid over-emphasizing single studies) that should be used with great caution, if at all: it only looks at calls to one U.S. state's poison control center (although possibly serving Oregon, Alaska, and Guam), and analyzes a sample size of of 21 people. Would Wikipedians cite a case-study that shows benefits of Ivermectin using only 21 people? I doubt it. The NEJM letter shows that call frequency rose between 2000 and 2001 and apparently spiked in the month of August 2021. Is this a nationwide trend? Yes, as the this CDC report demonstrates. There are probably better sources to document effects of overdose, and to put the symptoms and statistics in greater national or global context. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin

Research on ivermectin is ongoing. Some bone fide scientists believe that it works, others believe that it doesn't. Here's the latest meta-analysis from a reliable source PMID 34650951 "convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance". Under these circumstances, it cannot be called "misinformation". That's clear WP:POV. Even if it turns out in the end that it doesn't work, even then its current promotion cannot be called "misinformation". "Misinformation" means that it's clear that it doesn't work and people are still promoting it. That is not the case because right now it's not clear that it doesn't work.

A lot of the current content on ivermectin is just fearmongering that does not show that it's misinformation.

The antiparasitic drug ivermectin became a cause célèbre for right-wing figures promoting it as a supposed COVID treatment.

Ivermectin is not an "antiparasitic drug". It is a drug with many uses, antiparasitic being just one of them. The characterization of ivermectin as "antiparasitic" is a subtle way of mis-characterizing its use as misinformation.

Just because right-wingers were promoting it does not make it misinformation. The whole sentence is irrelevant and should be deleted.

Misinformation about ivermectin's efficacy spread widely on social media, fueled by publications that have since been retracted,

False. Not all publications have been retracted. PMID 34650951 is from September 2021 and has not been retracted.

misleading "meta-analysis" websites with substandard methods

I can make a misleading website that says that the world is round. That does not make the statement that the world is round false. The statement is irrelevant.

and conspiracy theories about efforts by governments and scientists to "suppress the evidence."

Again, these conspiracy theories do not mean that ivermectin efficacy is misinformation.

In October 2021 a large network of companies selling hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin has been disclosed in the US, targeting primarily right-wing and vaccine hesitant groups through social media and conspiracy videos by anti-vaccine activists such as Simone Gold. The network had 72,000 customers who collectively paid $15 million for consultations and medications.

Pharmaceutical companies sell pharmaceuticals and make large amounts of money. This does not mean that the pharmaceuticals that they sell don't work.

--Isabela31 (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

All these things are reliably sourced. Your counter-belief are not. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not the beliefs of editors. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not have "counter-beliefs". I went through the paragraph line by line and showed that none of the statements show that promoting ivermectin for COVID is "misinformation". You don't have any comments on that.

You are making a positive assertion that promoting ivermectin for COVID is misinformation. Yet, there is no WP:MEDRS to support this assertion. In fact, there are credible medical articles, one example of which I provided, that ivermectin could be useful for COVID. Maybe that's not enough to establish that ivermectin is good for COVID, but it also means that the assertion that ivermectin for COVID is misinformation is incorrect. --Isabela31 (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Alongside your beliefs, you provided one source, a Frontiers journal (weak) which, nevertheless is saying that ivermectin "could" be useful. Right. But the misinformation is that ivermectin is useful ("has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates the transmission of COVID" etc.). The reporting of the antics of quacks, charlatans, grifters and frauds does not require WP:MEDRS. This is an article on misinformation, so if you have pertinent sources bring them. But original research is unwelcome. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Vitamin D

This article lists vitamin D as "misinformation". The article on COVID-19 actually lists vitamin D as a way of preventing COVID. There is solid evidence that vitamin D works. The same comments that I made on ivermectin apply. Research is ongoing. Many bone fide scientists believe that it works. Under these circumstances, it cannot be called "misinformation". That's clear WP:POV. Even if it turns out in the end that it doesn't work, even then its current promotion cannot be called "misinformation". "Misinformation" means that it's clear that it doesn't work and people are still promoting it. That is not the case because right now it's not clear that it doesn't work. --Isabela31 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If it's not known that it works, plainly asserting that it does is misinformation by definition. The idea that vitamins "prevent" COVID-19 is anti-vaxx loonery, and there is no good evidence it has any treatment worth.[11] Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Any statement has a degree of confidence associated with it. You appear to be saying that unless the degree of confidence is 99.9%+, making a statement is misinformation. This standard is not applied in any other area of life. I agree that if the confidence is low (for example, below 20%), it is misinformation. But what if the confidence is higher? 50%? 80%?

The confidence that vitamin D prevents COVID is high enough that it is included in the article on COVID-19. How can it be listed there as preventative, in accordance with all the rules of WP:MEDRS, but then listed here as misinformation? --Isabela31 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The article does not call vitamin D a "preventative," nor do the sources in that article. So you are deliberately spreading misinformation right here, right now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What does it say about Vitamin D? Given what it says, how can vitamin D still be considered misinformation? --Isabela31 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Lets try an experiment "Singing "come on feel the noize" cures Covid 19", can you provide a source that says that is not true, if not this claim is not misinformation. So do you see the problem?Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This is coming very close to trolling. If you have an assertion to make, backed by reliable sources, make it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if Vitamin D were found to be an effective treatment for COVID-19 (to date, neither CDC nor NHS believe it is), there can still be misinformation surrounding it. Either fraudulent studies, people taking treatment guidelines out of context (NHS recommendations for Vit D supplements to avoid deficiency while social distancing, not to improve COVID outcomes), or otherwise claiming it's a preventative without data. I think we have room to treat the topic with a bit more tact to separate ongoing science from intentional disinformation, but scientist's earnest belief that there's evidence of Vitamin D effectiveness doesn't mean that a fabricated preprint on the topic isn't misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

And if and when studies say it is effective, it will not be misinformation. Until then it is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, sources that meet WP:MEDRS standards, since we're talking about a treatment for human disease. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hence why I said studies and not sources, I assumed it was obvious I meant clinical ones.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Preemptively clarifying for the original poster to save us both time, I know you're aware. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• There seems to be a basic logic fail among many COVID fringers, along the lines of somebody saying "You cannot say russian roulette is unsafe, it could be that pulling the trigger causes nothing more than a click - in which case I'd be justified in saying it's safe!". Misinformation stems from giving false information given known facts/probabilities, and is not cancelled by indulging in the fallacy of future vindication. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

PMID 34684596 is a systematic review and meta-analysis in an IM journal. Here's a summary of its conclusions.

Higher blood vitamin D3 levels reduce the chances of death from the SARS-CoV-2 infection. According to existing data, minimum mortality occurs at around 50 ng/mL of vitamin D3. This blood level of vitamin D3 can be achieved with daily vitamin D3 supplementation of 4,000 to 10,000 international units along with vitamin K2.

The article says that vitamin D prevents covid-19 death. Vitamin D is not "misinformation". Isabela31 (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

May be a usable source that could change the way we write about the topic. Namely our first paragraph in the section, which would be at least partially out of date. The latter paragraphs still seem accurate, as this study doesn't suggest vitamin D replace vaccinations and isn't applicable to a fraudulent study. Can anyone assess the journal quality? Nutrients (journal) says multiple editors resigned in 2018 in protest of pressure to accept low quality articles. Checking MEDLINE indexing would be good as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I confirmed MEDLINE indexing. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A MDPI journal? No thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the skepticism, but we'd need a policy reason not to acknowledge it alongside this one, which is cited on the COVID-19 article. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The policy is WP:V. MDPI journals are questionable sources, and so for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, not usable. Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm mostly curious if there's existing consensus regarding MDPI's general unreliability. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Questionable. So not suitable for surprising claims. Check out multiple past discussions at WP:RSN/WP:MEDRS or WP:RSP to see previous discussions. (And in any case this dubious article does not say vitamin D prevents infection or is a good alternative to vaccinces). Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn Does Wikipedia have a list of acceptable journals? When I became an editor, someone told me that for WP:MEDRS the journal must be in MEDLINE. WP:MEDRS doesn't say that by the way. If that's the actual policy, WP:MEDRS should be updated. Getting back to this topic, this journal is in MEDLINE. Not just MEDLINE, but Index Medicus. It's not listed in WP:RSP. You're saying that's not good enough. You and other experienced editors must know the policy, but if it's not in WP:MEDRS, no one else knows what it is. Where's the list of allowable journals? Isabela31 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no such list, and it would be crass to attempt such. You're wrong: MDPI journals are listed in RSP. Also see WP:CRAPWATCH. For misinformation, we should use reliable sources on misinformation rather than trying to WP:SYNTHesize pro-fringe counterpoints from iffy sources. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Editors are invited to participate in this RfC:
RfC about how we should use the Frutos source Adoring nanny (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

NIH guidelines on Ivermectin not appropriate for article?

Alexbrn has stated that the NIH guidelines on using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 offer "too much detail" and that "this is the wrong article" for summarizing the NIH's recommendations on ivermectin use with respect to COVID-19. I asked Alexbrn to explain why the NIH guidelines are not appropriate in this article on this talk page, but he declined to do so and instead reverted my edit for a second time. It appears from his talk page that Alexbrn has engaged in repeated edit wars across Wikipedia, so rather than provoke another edit war, I have left the page as it is, and requested (for a second time) that he explain his objections on this talk page. Lenschulwitz (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is an article about COVID-19 misinformation, which is already long enough as it is. Further details about Ivermectin should go on the relevant article, which is Ivermectin. This isn't particularly difficult to grasp, I don't see why you would need anyone to explain this again when it's so simple. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Exactly. While this information is not bad per se, this is an article focused on misinformation as RandomCanadian says. Information about ivermectin research is at ivermectin and the NIH position (one of many) is covered at COVID-19 drug repurposing research. Here it's just bloat. The OP's edit summaries also suggest an attitude problem. Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lenschulwitz: As a courtesy note to this discussion: please see COVID-19 treatments (current consensus). The Ivermectin is mentioned first. You may consider to shorten your [20:41, Dec 8, 2021] contribution to a couple of words that simply summarize what the guideline says in the Recommendation subection. This may be redundant though as it's already covered in repurposing research. Please use {{divbox}} to make a proposal and don't engage in reverting in any way. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern Regarding Prevention Section Wording

The following phrasing in the "Prevention" section is highly offensive to Catholics and Orthodox:

"Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, on 9 March 2020, the Church of Greece announced that Holy Communion, in which churchgoers eat pieces of bread soaked in wine from the same chalice, would continue as a practice."

Holy Communuon, according to Catholic and Orthodox belief, is the Body and Blood of Christ having the physical characteristics of bread and wine, which is a key distinction. The use of "pieces of bread soaked in wine" is therefore offensive to these religious communities by denigrating their chief act of worship. This could be easily resolved in a neutral way by rephrasing as "Holy Communion, destributed from a common chalice," and meaning is not lost. A link to the article about Holy Communion could also replace the insufficient explanation given. Perturbed Cupid (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

A rare case where WP:NOTCENSORED applies. If people are offended by reality that's not Wikipedia's problem to fix, and your proposed rewording does indeed lose meaning. Alexbrn (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 December 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

---

COVID-19 misinformation → COVID-19 pandemic misinformation – As per the opening sentence of the article : "COVID-19 misinformation refers to misinformation and conspiracy theories about the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic and the origin, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease COVID-19..." Better align with parent category Category:COVID-19 pandemic Gjs238 (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Because as the words word quoted above say, this is also about "the origin, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease". Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with Alexbrn that the quote in the above request makes it clear that the scope of this article includes more than just the pandemic. Looking at the WP:CRITERIA, the proposed title would be less precise and concise. I think the proposer here is making a consistency article, but I don't think we should be moving articles to be consistent with category names, and Category:COVID-19 is also a parent category. Firefangledfeathers 20:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. This added word does not help anyone find the article, it does not clarify the scope any further. We should not obsess over consistency with the opening sentence, which is the purpose of the WP:BOLDAVOID guideline. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above, the origin of a virus is not a pandemic. Spider241 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Nor is its treatment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This page covers both misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic (orgin, numbers, ...) and the COVID-19 disease (treatment, vaccine, ...). The two should not be confused. Hosortyr (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose less concise and reduces scope which doesn't just cover the pandemic its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons above, and just reinforcing that we generally rename categories to match articles, not articles to match categories. Also, a name change would make it inconsistent with the most similar article, Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, which doesn't mention pandemic in its title. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. A broader scope that includes the origins, spread, and societal factors of the disease is appropriate without title pedantry. When the pandemic has subsided (hopefully sooner than later), there will still likely be misinformation. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2022 (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.

odd dangling sentence

The subheading Gain-of-function research concludes with the sentence: "In October 2021, NIH principal deputy director Larry Tabak sent a letter to Kentucky Congressman James Comer addressing NIH grants to EcoHealth Alliance.[77]" Ok, so what? This reads as an out-of-place, incongruent, unfinished statement at least, and a misleading one at worst implying (but not stating) that merely sending the letter settled the matter and cleared everyone of any wrongdoing or GoF. Neither Tabak, Comer, nor EcoHealth is mentioned anywhere else in the article, and the existence of a letter is not in itself misinformation (the NY Times source states in its lead that, according to the NIH, EcoHealth "failed to promptly report findings from studies on how well bat coronaviruses grow in mice"). Why is the sending of a political letter worth discussing in a globally focused article on COVID-19 misinformation? Would it even be appropriate to discuss the contents of the letter in this article? --Animalparty! (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: I just boldly deleted it. One small step towards consolidation and conciseness. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The article is too long now

The article is now over 85 kB, which means it should be split per WP:SIZERULE. I suggest we start splitting this article by topic, such as Misinformation regarding the origin of COVID-19, Misinformation regarding the spread of COVID-19, and so on and so forth. Alternatively, much of the content in the article's "Prevention" and "Treatment" sections can be redirected to List of unproven methods against COVID-19, since that article is a lot shorter. Love of Corey (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Previously discussed at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation/Archive_14#I_don't_think_this_is_too_long, by @Newystats, Novem Linguae, and RandomCanadian. I continue to believe the article is too long, and that the Prevention section in particular is ripe for summary/trimming. Firefangledfeathers 04:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the content on that section should be redirected to another article, like I said earlier. Love of Corey (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Splitting out the biggest level 2 heading or headings into their own articles seems fine. Then we can {{Excerpt}} their leads here or similar. I'd strongly recommend more concise titles though, per WP:CONCISE. This "regarding the" phrasing is not needed, and can be replaced with COVID-19 origin misinformation, COVID-19 spread misinformation, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I think concise editing is needed over mere fact compilation and endless splitting. A lot of newsy prose based on recentism like "on this precise date it was announced by journal X that a thing happened" could, for the sake of an encyclopedia, be simplified to "a thing happened". Comprehensive rewrites per WP:10YEARTEST don't happen often enough. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. These WP:RECENTISM type articles tend to suffer from WP:PROSELINE. Condensing is often superior. Finding an editor to do the condensing might be an issue though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines don't say that, only that the article should probably be split. Even at 100 kB, the guideline only says that the article should be split "almost certainly", to emphasize that it is a rule of thumb. In my opinion, the scope of this article warrants its length, while the proposed splits feel unnatural and unintuitive. Although there's enough material to make their own main articles for some of the topics touched here, this article should remain unsplit. BlueBanana (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge the Prevention, and the Treatment sections

Should COVID-19_misinformation#Prevention, and COVID-19_misinformation#Treatment, be merged to List of unproven methods against COVID-19? --Bawanio (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Bawanio (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at that, I don't think it worked very well. The target article is a list article and the stuff here if more than just "unproven". Reverting this article back. The list article might point to entries here though. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, disagree with this merge. I think adding that content to the List article is probably fine (needs attribution) but the changes here are likely unnecessary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Love of Corey (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Mass formation"

The latest set of misinformation appears to relate to the idea that COVID mitigation measures are a result of a Freudian group psychosis, as presented by Mattias Desmet and Robert W. Malone. The Mass formation article had a set of edits made with some useful sources that I think would be more appropriate at this page (once trimmed for length and credulity), and also has a redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_8#Mass_formation_psychosis. Any thoughts on where this could be added here? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Not major enough for this article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, particularly relative to some of the relatively minor things that we cover (meteor origin, vibrations, and vegetarian immunity). I agree that it could be grouped in with a similar set of like-minded misinformation to help reduce article length, but this exceeds our threshold of notability used elsewhere in the article. As a quick litmus test, if Joe Rogan promotes it and mainstream media runs articles to debunk it, it's probably notable enough. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is this is one mans opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Two 'experts' opinions, amplified by a major talk show, and reported on by highly reliable and notable sources. Our Vegetarian immunity section is based on a hashtag that was trending on Twitter. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Amen! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is not and should not be a running repository of every piece of misinformation that gets 2 days of news coverage. Wikipedia is not everything, and despite some noble intentions, is not the place to educate and protect readers from any and all falsehoods they may see on Twitter today or tomorrow. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that Forbes.com link is to a "contributor" piece, and is thus considered an unreliable source here. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Good catch on the Forbes article. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I can agree that it shouldn't be a compendium of every minor piece of misinformation. But we also have an entire level 2 header for "#NoMeat_NoCoronaVirus trending on Twitter in India". I don't have a problem with waiting to see where the mass formation stuff goes to ensure lasting notability, but we really do need to clean up the cruft to meet a similar threshold of notability going forward if that's consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with cleaning cruft. Wikipedians on average are better at compiling than editing (even in the absence of WP:RECENTISM or global once-in-a-lifetime pandemics), as discussed in sections above. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Many RS are writing about this. Llll5032 (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This page is biased

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.

---

Wikipedia’s first core content policy is Neutral point of view, and this article is in my opinion the antithesis of that. The consensus here is that COVID-19 conspiracy theories and the alternate views are misinformation, and while most accept that as the case. We should not describe these beliefs as misinformation with 100% certainty that it is fact. Instead of saying the biased 'This is misinformation', we should say 'Most evidence points towards these ideas as being misinformation', which isn’t biased.

MCMax05 (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Per wp:fringe and wp:npov, yes we do reflect what the scientific and academic consensus as fact. Per wp:weight we do not give fringe POV equal weight when determining what is and is not factual.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is pure garbage, a work of propaganda to label everything that does not conform to some bureaucrat's "truth of the day" as misinformation. Unfortunately it'll take a few years before the hysteria fades back to regular levels and this article is deleted back to the bottomless void from where it should never have emerged in the first place. Fbergo (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2022 (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.

Charles Ortleb

I just noticed there is a draft for Charles Ortleb. Ortleb promoted misinformation about HIV/AIDS and now promotes Covid misinformation. The draft is in a poor state right now, but it would be a good long term project. Thriley (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Typo at the end of "Misinformation regarding virus origin" section

"This has parallels in previous outbreaks of novel diseases, such as HIV, SARS and H1N1, which have also been the subject of allegations of laboratory origin."

It should be changed to something like "This has been paralleled in previous ..." or "This parallels previous ...".

Sorry for starting a Talk topic for something so minor but I don't have edit access to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msk1411 (talk • contribs)

Fixed, but for the record I think all three of these are grammatically correct.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you're right, the original meant "parallel" as a noun. I still think the updated version is more intuitive, though; thank you for the fix. Msk1411 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation based on political ideology

I propose a new section (or subsection) called, "Misinformation based on political ideology" with the following content:

In March 2021, the New York Times quoted a report on the public perception of COVID-19 risks by Jonathan Rothwell, Gallup’s principal economist, and Sonal Desai, a Franklin Templeton executive, which said, "Republicans consistently underestimate risks, while Democrats consistently overestimate them."

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources

What does this have to do with misinformation? (Please use quotes from the sources to describe how, as is required by WP:DUE.) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It says, "Republicans consistently underestimate risks, while Democrats consistently overestimate them." Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That would mean they under/over estimate, not that it's misinformation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry but this doesn't talk about misinformation, so it wouldn't really be a good fit for this article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian lab origin

In March 2022, amid the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry stated that US President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, as well as billionaire George Soros, were closely tied to Ukrainian biolabs. American right-wing media personalities, such as Tucker Carlson, highlighted the story, while Chinese state media outlet Global Times further stated that the labs had been studying bat coronaviruses, which spread widely on the Chinese internet for insinuating that the United States had created SARS-CoV-19 in Ukrainian laboratories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kches16414 (talk • contribs)

In the section "Accusations by Russia"? "Firestorm" is not a good word here. --mfb (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I've modified verbiage to note virality without charged words. It could indeed go under "Accusations by Russia" but it could also go under its own label, since the accusations are now being brought from several angles. --Kches16414 (talk 05:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal Article Linking 5G to Severity of Covid-19

Can we add this science please? It's a peer-reviewed, scientific study that's been published in a medical journal.

"Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580522/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580522/ 187.244.124.233 (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I got a 404 error - is there a better link? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

They linked to it twice https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580522. I would like to know what they want to use this to say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:MEDRS. We don't use single studies (especially ones like this, which are making merely hypothetical links). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Vitamin C

Can we mention that the Vitamin C treatment protocol was used in hospitals during the C-19 pandemic? Drsruli (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-c/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32662690/

https://revitalizinginfusions.com/new-york-hospitals-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/

https://annalsofintensivecare.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13613-020-00792-3

https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04710329

https://www.nutraingredients.com/Article/2020/03/25/Hospital-turns-to-high-dose-vitamin-C-to-fight-coronavirus

https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/COVID19/IV-VitaminC-virus

https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-021-00727-z

https://www.newsweek.com/new-york-hospitals-vitamin-c-coronavirus-patients-1494407

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.638556/full

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.559811/full

https://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/research/nutrition-in-medicine/vitamin-c/

https://www.intelligentliving.co/vitamin-c-covid-19-treatment-ny-hospitals/

https://www.revitalaz.com/blog/vitamin-c-treatment-in-the-covid-19-era

https://www.accjournal.org/journal/view.php?number=1289

https://www.medpagetoday.com/casestudies/infectiousdisease/87976

https://www.consultdranderson.com/elementor-247647/

https://www.lemmo.com/new-york-listens-as-vitamin-c-intravenous-becomes-a-treatment-tool-in-covid-19/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-96703-y

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172861/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-york-hospitals-giving-patients-16-times-the-daily-recommended-dose-of-vitamin-c-to-fight-coronavirus

https://wholefoodsmagazine.com/news/reports-hospitals-in-ny-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8149191/New-York-hospitals-treating-corona-patients-6000-milligrams-VITAMIN-C.html

Drsruli (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I clicked through on three articles, none of which supported the claim. If you want to assert that research was done ... how is that misinformation-relevant? IAmNitpicking (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

To report that that the Vitamin C treatment protocol was used in hospitals during the C-19 pandemic. Drsruli (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

How's that relevant to misinformation? Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Drsruli, I too clicked a couple of your links that weren't directly referencing it in the title (three now, actually), and reviewed them, and only one mentioned what you're talking about in that context. Either you're not doing your due diligence in verifying the sources (I'm assuming you didn't read all of these), or you're deliberately misrepresenting sources, and hoping that we won't check (which I doubt). Either way, do better. I'm also not sure how this is related to misinformation, as IAmNitpicking points out. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

What about the ones that directly reference it in the title? Drsruli (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, how is that relevant to misinformation? Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Because there is a Vitamin C treatment section. Drsruli (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

But does any of this contradict the claim we make? Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Does it have to? (Wikipedia "makes a claim"? I think that it's about recording history.) Drsruli (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does, as if this does not add anything to the claims we make (or dispute it) it adds nothing to our understanding of the subject. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Not different from numerous other entries on the same page, stating that something was wrong, and giving an instance of it. This is considerable context for the category. Drsruli (talk)

They do not say something is wrong, they say something is done. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

All the more so. This is something that was done. Drsruli (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

What? So? this tells us nothing about Covid misinformation, it does not address it. Drop this now, you do not have wp:consensus. I am bowing out now as this is just going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I asked "Can we mention that the Vitamin C treatment protocol was used in hospitals during the C-19 pandemic?" You requested sources. Here are some sources. Drsruli (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, in this article we can't just mention that vitamin C was used in hospitals, because that is not misinformation, as repeatedly explained above this. IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

All right. I guess that that was my question. Since we have a statement about Vitamin C, is that enough to mention (reported) examples of use. (Sources provided.) It seems that other entries employ similar structure. (In light of the statement in the category, hospital use of the treatment could be notable.) Drsruli (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hospitals tried a lot of dumb things, especially in the early stages of the pandemic, and Vitamin C has been pushed by quacks. But we'd need sources putting this together for it to be includable here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Article too long

The article is definitely too long to read comfortably (300+ KB). The readable prose size is > 100 KB, so it should be divided as per [[12]]. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Some articles will always be longer than the 100 KB limit. It should not be divided, though it could probably be condensed some. Not down to 100, but some. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Prior discussions from last November and this January. I agree that trimming is preferable to splitting. I reiterate my now mostly-serious proposal that §Prevention be condensed down into something like: "False claims have spread suggesting that COVID-19 can be prevented by drinking alcohol, drinking hot drinks, eating vegetarian, practicing specific religions, smoking tobacco, snorting cocaine, mass disinfection using helicopters, clapping, eating cabbage, or eating the poisonous Datura fruit." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hannity, "corona is a hoax"

If the article is claiming that Hannity called the virus a hoax would it not make sense to link to him saying it and not an edited version of his words? 42.125.117.185 (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We here on wikipedia prefer secondary sources. See WP:RS.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Mask worms/parasites/morgellons

Ran across a conspiracy theory the other day that microscopic black fibers in Chinese masks are actually some kind of bio-weapon called a morgellon that infects you with something. Might be enough RS to add this to the article. Reuters. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder how far that social media post spread. If notable, it might be worth adding to the Morgellons article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sexual transmission and infertility

Maybe it's me, but I don't actually see any mention of misinformation in this section. There's mention of speculation about sexual transmission, but nobody actually seems to have asserted it as fact. Even if you accept that one sentence, the rest of the section appears out of place. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Its still misinformation. In fact, it's worse, as it is "only asking questions" style. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Why does COVID-19 Denial redirect here?

COVID-19 denial and/or minimization should have its own article. This one's too long already. Did there used to be a page for COVID-19 Denial that was folded into this page? WikiUserBC (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

From page history, it has basically always been a redirect. While I can see the appeal and page length has been a concern for a while, I suspect snapping a clean line between 'regular' misinformation and denialism might prove difficult. Did you have a recommendation? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, it would be hard to draw a line. I was thinking about pulling out themes around understating the risk, such as "its just like flu", "its only a problem for the elderly", "so much more harm is done by wearing masks", etc. I've seen the term 'COVID denial' used for that type of messaging. WikiUserBC (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably a first step would be to tighten up this article (there's a lot of excess wordage). Then see what we've got? Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess I will see if I can condense those themes in this article WikiUserBC (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I suspect there's a lot that, with the benefit of hindsight, can be trimmed to really capture the broader strokes, rather than documenting every wild idea passed around one location for a week or two. For instance, could our sections on Mustard oil and Spiritual healing be removed as being too narrow, since each only deals with one individual (Ramdev and Kenneth Copeland respectively) with the topics covered on their respective pages? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the narrative portions of those sections and others could be removed for being too narrow, if they are listed elsewhere and could be referenced. Then the headers could all be in a list with those references. 192.160.51.86 (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

New Bloom source problems, Taiwan News issues.

Source 227, New Bloom Magazine, as a source, is questionable and should be eliminated, and the section "Alleged leak of death toll by Tencent" requires citation and corrections. We must not allow internet feuds and AI-generated authors to impact Wiki. This concerning issue was brought to my attention via Reddit discussions and Tweets. I have no connection to New Bloom or Taiwan News, simply a dislike for Wiki being used for internet feuds. Brian Hioe has a well-publicized feud with Taiwan News, which he rants about on social media near daily.

Co-author Lars Wooster's medical credentials is the basis for the article's authority. But Lars Wooster is an AI-generated character. The profile image is clearly generated by AI, and the name itself is a terrible blend of Scandinavian first names and British surnames with no internet presence other than on Brian's blog.

This subject was discussed on the Taiwan News page's talk page, where it was pointed out that it is not deserving of controversies and so removed. It was identical to the "Alleged leak of death toll by Tencent" but later removed for not passing muster.

Furthermore, New Bloom's piece does not dispute that China may have been untruthful about their figures, only that they found it doubtful that Tencent ever possessed the true numbers, which is overly critical. The Taiwan News piece does not even say that Tencent leaked the genuine figures; instead, it focuses on the dubiousness of China's reporting on COVID numbers, which was a global topic in February 2020, and points out that Tencent had a gaffe. Bloomberg and many other prominent papers reported on it as well. Taiwan News was not the first to notice the gaffe either, therefore the omission of Bloomberg and the Washington Post shows prejudice.

The same dubious New Bloom story is mentioned again in the second section, "Mass cremation in Wuhan." Based on a screenshot from Windy.com, the other source, Full Fact, mentions The Sun, Metro, Daily Express, Daily Mail, and many others as reporting on the cremation story but Taiwan News is never mentioned in the piece. Furthermore, printing information that is later disproven is not a mortal sin and if it was, then this section should include all the papers that ever reported on the story. Except for the aforementioned New Bloom Magazine, I am not clear why Taiwan News gets singled out or is even mentioned there.

Until there is a better report on the subject, the part "Alleged leak of death toll by Tencent" should be removed, as it has been done elsewhere, and "Mass cremation in Wuhan should not mention Taiwan News" as there's zero credible sources linking Taiwan News. Furthermore, the dubious New Bloom article as a source should be removed because AI produced authors on blogs are not credible sources. AnalogBiped (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

scientific papers on covid misinformation

The two papers here, among others, should be added in the refs:

"Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics", https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4

Blaylock RL. "COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?" Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/ 37.101.144.152 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Current consensus

This source should be considered [though at a preprint stage], "Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2", https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.18.512756v1 37.101.144.152 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Junk source. Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Also one source can't be "consensus". Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The pre-print has been giving everyone a good laugh.[13] Yet another vindication of Wikipedia's sourcing policies, that it's kept out. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It is neither a junk source, since many or most of the good articles are prepublished on preprint servers like this, so you cannot for sure put your "junk" label os such a preprint server at all. Nor it is consensus, on the contrary it is one of the proof that consensus is not reached yet, if ever will, and as such is here just to point to what you consider consensus in the voice it may be not. So a more comprehensive approach would be appreciated. 37.101.144.152 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Go and dig in its metric page to see if the 74 media/blogs or the over 8k twitter comments are all laughing at it as you suppose on the basis of one, single, link at vox. That, by the way, writes: "The ultimate origins of Covid are one of the biggest open questions in science, and if clear evidence emerged that a pandemic that has killed millions began with the work of researchers in a lab, the ramifications for science would be unimaginable." Even your link says it is an open quesiton, while in the voice in wp it is given for granted the consensus is on natural origin. Well, I think you should first make clear to yourself what (selected) part you pick up from the (selected) RS you provide. 37.101.144.152 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

We do not care how many blogs or Twitter users liked it. Absolutely irrelevant to our inclusion criteria. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Preprints are not reliable. See WP:PREPRINT. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Fails PREPRINT, fails SECONDARY, and authors do not seem to be recognized specialists in any relevant fields. JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Blood transfusions

Something here Vaccine_hesitancy#Blood_transfusion may fit in this article too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Evolution of scientific consensus

First time reader of this page. It seems that the page does not explain the fact that the scientific consensus has evolved since the beginning of the pandemic. The evolution seems to be described separately for each topic (I checked for the use of masks, I guess there is one for what the vaccines were expected to do, etc.). But the general phenomenon, which is important, is not identified in the introduction, and it's regrettable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.254.61.46 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Has it? please provide some RS that says what we say is no longer the scientific consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Not really a topic for this article, which is specifically about misinformation. Misinformation is misinformation, whether or not it's a "stopped clock right twice a day". Bakkster Man (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Virus denialism

My comment about virus denialism got removed (don't know how to contact the editor). If virus denialism can't be listed under Covid-19 Misinformation, what can? Please don't misunderstand me: I am not advocating but extensively debunking virus denialists. Please give a valid reason for deletion other than "LOL". The lemma on Germ Theory Denialism doesn't even mention Covid, so should be updated as well: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism FrankVisser101 (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi FrankVisser101. Doktorbuk removed the comment. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning virus denialism, but we need a stronger source than your publication. In your research, did you come across journal articles, reliably published books, or news articles that discuss the topic? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, David Gorski quoted my work twice on his Respectfulinsolence skeptic blog (on Kaufman's and Mercola's germ theory denialism), but regular news media just mention if David Icke is banned from YouTube. No scientist takes them seriously. But they have an impact in the counter culture among the more radical antivaxx factions which should not be overlooked. Again, Dan Wilson (Debunk the Funk on YouTube) does a fair job of debunking one of their heroes Stefan Lanka. That's it. Actually: for my book I extensively used Wikipedia! David Quammen, who recently published "Breathless" about the pandemic, supported my work: "Sorting through the confusion - Frank Visser has patiently compiled this book on the #COVID19 conspiracy theories and the realities behind them. Very useful in this time when wild, unsupported ideas are flying everywhichway. He brings light and sanity to the miasmal confusion of suspicions and misinformation. We all have questions about COVID-19, much is still unknown, but let's answer those questions with empirical data and peer-reviewed research. (Amazon review, David Quammen, November 23, 2020). He is the foremost popular science writer on zoonoses. It just hasn't reached the mainstream media (yet). FrankVisser101 (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for being brisk and brusque, only at first glance your comment seemed to be rather extreme and pushing an agenda. I patrol talk pages quite often and I thought you were publishing something inappropriate. Happy to help if you're suggesting constructive edits. doktorb _words^deeds 16:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, as I mentioned above, there are barely any mainstream media sources about virus denialism. Skeptic bloggers are the best you can hope for. See for example: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/psychiatrist-who-calmly-denies-reality I realize that calling a book THE CORONA CONSPIRACY might give the impression I believe this stuff - far from it. The subtitle tells it: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus. I might be the only researcher who has exensively investigated this topic. So how to present this without self-promotion? Anyways, Wikipedia should cover this somehow. FrankVisser101 (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

SUGGESTED ADDITION:

Virus denialism

Some conspiracy theorists or alternative health practitioners have gone so far to deny the very existence of viruses.[1] Examples are David Icke, Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan, Stefan Lanka, Stefano Scoglio and Sam Bailey.[2] Critical engagement has come from several skeptical bloggers[3][4] or fact check websites[5][6], but not yet in mainstream media, though these ideas have a large audience on social media.

[1] https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism

[2] For a critical discussion see: Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus, www.integralworld.net

[3] Jonathan Jerry, "The Psychiatrist Who Calmly Denies Reality", https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/psychiatrist-who-calmly-denies-reality

[4] David Gorski, "Germ theory denial in the age of the COVID-19 pandemic", https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/germ-theory-denial-in-the-age-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/

[5] Reuters, "Fact Check-SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and its complete genome has been sequenced", https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-rna-idUSL1N2LS27P

[6] FullFact, "The Covid-19 virus has been isolated many times", https://fullfact.org/health/Covid-isolated-virus/ FrankVisser101 (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

First off, we cannot use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. That's right out.

We also can't just blanket suggest a website as a source. You need a specific article from a reliable source, not a general "look at this website."

As a blog, we can't use Source 3 for anything besides "this is what Jonathan Jerry believes." Blogs are not considered Reliable Sources for anything but the author's opinion, so it wouldn't fit into this article.

Source 4 has potential for use here, I'll let others discuss it. It's a general publication article though, not scientific research paper, so given the rules in WP:MEDRS it may not be appropriate for this article. I haven't woken up enough to digest it & determine if it's focused enough to be appropriate here.

5 & 6 are factual statements, but we can't draw conclusions on our own in Wikipedia articles. We could use them as statements that the virus is real, but that's about it.

I get that this news might be frustrating, but Wikipedia has fairly strict rules for what gets put into articles about medical topics, in order to avoid giving inappropriate medical advice. So we are very cautious about what gets cited, especially in such a contentious area as COVID-19. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, but am a bit at a loss on how this gets off the radar of Wikipedia with these strict guidelines.

Note 1 was meant as cross-link. Note 2 is a self-published book endorsed by David Quammen, who is a well known science writer about spillovers. Jonathan Jarry is not just another blogger, but a well-known science communicator specifically addressing medical misinformation. David Gorksi at least makes clear in general that even in times of this pandemic germ theory denial is still a thing. He too endorsed my research.

Please advise how to proceed. I know of no mainstream media source covering this countercultural phenomenon, even though, for example, David Icke's videos on Covid have reached millions: https://counterhate.com/research/deplatform-icke/ FrankVisser101 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess the question is, why is it important to have in this article, when we already have an article on germ theory denialism in general? No more than a brief statement here pointing to that article is really needed, as it's not a central feature of COVID misinformation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is even a separate HIV/AIDS denialism Wiki page. For SARS-CoV-2 denialism that isn't needed, but I would appreciate a list item on this COVID-Misinformation page linking to: Germ theory denialism [y] and at least Gorski's blog "Germ theory denial in the age of the COVID-19 pandemic".[x]

Suggestion:

VIRUS DENIALISM

Some conspiracy theorists or alternative health practitioners go even so far as to deny the very existence of SARS-CoV-2.[x] This has occurred in every recent viral pandemic and is usually known as germ theory denialism.[y] FrankVisser101 (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS denialism has been a huge factor in that disease's history, that's why it gets a unique page.

As for your suggested wording, WP:WEASEL applies to the "Some people believe..." phrase. And I'd be shocked if there's a source we can cite which backs up that "every recent viral pandemic" has had a significant germ-theory denialist problem.

And that's my problem with this proposal: germ theory denialists exist, yes. They tend to pop up any time there's a major disease in the news. But I haven't seen them be a significant problem with COVID. Most of the denalism comes in the form of "it's no worse than the flu!" and stupid suggestions for how to cure it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You would be surprised that there are at least 15 things about SARS-CoV-2 that have or can been denied, not only its severity. https://www.integralworld.net/visser207.html 1. it exists, 2. it is harmful, 3. it is contagious, 4. is causes a characteristic disease, 5. it can be sequenced and tested for, 6. it has a natural origin, 7. it is not spread on purpose, 8. it is not spread accidentally, 9. it is the result of our disturbance of wildlife, 10. it comes to us from bats, 11. through an intermediate animal, 12. existing treatments don't work, 13. we must live in a temporary lockdown, 14. until a vaccine has been found, 15. and the virus will weaken down. As I said, David Quammen called these "the canonical points".

It is true that denialism has not been as massive as in the AIDS/HIV days, but many SARS-CoV-2 denialists use the same arguments, or have been involved in past denialisms. FrankVisser101 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation? Really?

How is having a difference of opinion misinformation? 50.120.71.128 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ask wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"When Did Ignorance Become a Point of View" is a Dilbert volume, but it applies here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of COVID-19 denialism

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.

---

I propose a merge of COVID-19 denialism to COVID-19 misinformation, as it is short enough to be part of that article. I propose that it goes to the #Other section, as it seems like it would fit best there. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge. WP:OVERLAP and the small size of the article appear applicable here, not to mention denialism is inherently misinformation. I also agree that #Other is the optimal location for the merge. ReadItAlready (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge as above. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge seems reasonable, and should also satisfy the issue in the previous section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware of the COVID denialism page, but I would support such a merger, as long as it stipulated (see my comments in the previous section) that denialism has many facets. Bolsonaro or Trump deny only the severity of the virus, or that existing medication isn't working, but they don't deny the very existence of the virus. In that context Gorski's blog post would be relevant. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/germ-theory-denial-in-the-age-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/ FrankVisser101 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's a blog, which makes it dubious at best for inclusion here. We can handle this merge discussion first, then tackle whether it's worth adding that content. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Dubious at best"? Gorksi is one of the main skeptic spokesmen in the battle against medical misinformation which we have. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/David_Gorski Exactly on topic. I rest my case.

To repeat: if you add COVID denialism as item on the COVID Misinformation page, it needs to be actualized with a reference to Covid-19. Gorski is your best choice. FrankVisser101 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. Gorski's expertise might qualify for here, per WP:BLOG, but that's a discussion for later. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI, WP:SBM is considered generally reliable, particularly when WP:PARITY of sources around fringe beliefs are involved. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know. Still, would rather deal with that question after we resolve this merge proposal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:14, 5 January 2023 (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.

Lab leak hypothesis

Wall St. Journal, February 26, 2023: "Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says"

I think this is notable enough and reliably sourced enough to be included in the article.

What do others here think?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really part of this article, as it has nothing to do with misinformation. We have other places for this, particularly COVID-19 lab leak theory. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

RETRACTED ARTICLE

@Isi96, Donkey Hot-day, Veracious, Bon courage, and Cloud200:

• Skidmore, Mark (24 January 2023). "RETRACTED ARTICLE: The role of social circle COVID-19 illness and vaccination experiences in COVID-19 vaccination decisions: an online survey of the United States population". BMC Infectious Diseases. 23 (1): 51. doi:10.1186/s12879-023-07998-3. Retrieved 20 April 2023.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Hiltzik, Michael (11 April 2023). "Column: Anti-vaxxers loved to cite this study of COVID vaccine deaths. Now it's been retracted". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 20 April 2023.
• Teoh, Flora (3 February 2023). "Baseless claim that COVID-19 vaccines killed more than 200,000 comes from flawed BMC Infectious Diseases study". Health Feedback. Retrieved 20 April 2023.

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitic prejudices

Procedural equivalence is a type of equivalence, it focuses on comparing current government behaviour, especially policies related to COVID-19, to the tools and techniques of the Nazi regime. A rhetorical use of the Holocaust is evident – the “Nazi card” being played to delegitimize government policies. These references focused on the language and practices of Nazi government, equating them with policies said to threaten contemporary society in similar ways. Procedural equivalence also makes use of the moral force of the Holocaust but is largely oriented towards dire fantasies and predictions rather than comparison to actual events.

One such reference was to the “Yellow Star”, a badge that Nazi Germany and its collaborators throughout Europe forced Jews to wear to identify themselves (although in other forms it has featured in many other societies since medieval times). Comparisons of the Yellow Star to “health passes”, which were part of many societal responses to COVID-19, were a recurring motif on online platforms (and have also been used in demonstrations throughout the world), with many arguing that the health pass is used to exclude and marginalize the unvaccinated in the same way that the Yellow Star was used to push Jews out of society. Vaccination requirements bear no resemblance to the experience and reality of persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany or during the Holocaust and reveal a deep lack of empathy towards victims of the Holocaust, or the incapacity to conceive of Jews as victims.

Another frequent reference was to the Nuremberg Code, which was often part of current debates about vaccines. Some social media content argued that vaccines constitute a kind of medical experiment on humanity, similar to those perpetrated on concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors during the era of the Third Reich and the Second World War. Other references were made to concentration and extermination camps, or vaccines being a “final solution”, or something that “sets you free”, an ironic reference to Arbeit macht frei (work sets you free), a slogan at the entrance of several concentration camps (most infamously the gateway to Auschwitz I Main Camp). Others argued that free speech and limits on the press were being imposed. In each case, the intention is to suggest that the mindset of current governments has something in common with the Nazi regime, and that the restrictions to tackle COVID-19 are the beginning of a much worse and more sinister phenomenon. In these cases, there is arguably an overlap (or some connection) between these arguments and the narratives where COVID-19 is depicted as a worldwide conspiracy, perhaps of Jewish origin. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Rechelle (talk • contribs) 06:13, May 5, 2023 (UTC)

References

Was this a suggestion for adding to the article or just your personal essay? Because the wording is more argumentative than a typical Wikipedia article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not just in the United States

In its section about governments trying to combat misinformation by censorship, the article says: In the United States, some elected officials aided the spread of misinformation.

This certainly was the case - but was not limited to the United States unfortunately! For example in my country, Germany, elected officials from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and persons who ran for elections on federral and Land ("state") levels - AfD again, but also Die Basis and probably some other small splinter parties - actively spread misinformation about COVID-19. ObersterGenosse (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. If you have referenced information about other nations' government misinformation, or even better a review of worldwide incidence of such, you could add information from it to this article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought so, too, but I don't seem to have extended confirmed user status. In Germany, the government luckilly didn't spread misinformation or aid its spread, but elected officials (MdB = Member of the Bundestag) and members of state-level parliaments (Landtag) certainly did. Would references in German suffice? ObersterGenosse (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

German language should be OK. Maybe cite to a link w article translated by eg Google if possible. Source only judged by if a [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:MEDRS]] if required here (not sure). Maybe start w German Wikipedia and see how it goes or do both. Good luck. JustinReilly (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

Under "Wuhan lab origin > Bio-weapon" section, add the following paragraph:

In 2021 the US department of state released a statement alleging that "The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017."

Citation: https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html WatchDogx (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. It also does not demonstrate that the information is WP:DUE and relevant to this article. With a different source, it may be appropriate for the Wuhan Institute of Virology article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Bioweapon idea and WikiVoice

We now have sourcing in the Times of London and the Daily Telegraph supporting the bioweapon idea. Lead paragraph of the Times story[14]: Scientists in Wuhan working alongside the Chinese military were combining the world’s most deadly coronaviruses to create a new mutant virus just as the pandemic began. If one reads the story further, it softens that a bit. But the above is definitely the opinion US State Department investigators, according to the Times. In light of this, I don't think we can any longer say in WikiVoice that the bioweapon idea is a conspiracy theory. I also don't think at this point we should say in WikiVoice that said idea is true. Instead, at this point, we should report the debate, per WP:WikiVoice. However, this article is no longer the correct place to do so. Related discussion at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Sunday_Times_of_London_article. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree at a minimum it’s no longer appropriate to use wikivoice here. JustinReilly (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Murdoch press is Murdoch press. And the Daily Telegraph is demonstrably unreliable on the topic of COVID-19. XOR'easter (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose both deletion and changes to voice. Nothing has changed. The evidence points to the Huanan seafood market as the origin of COVID (which is not very close to the WIV), but regardless, claims of a bioweapon is an extraordinary claim that is way off the deep end into conspiracy theory territory, per reliable sources. See thread. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Neither support it, they report it in a way that means they do not actually come down in favour of it. Rather ascribing it to anonymous sources. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Neither of these are the level of high quality reliable source we would need for such an extraordinary claim.

WP:ECREE: Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: ...Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

•Support, I agree that Wikivoice should not be used to say that bioweapon theories are true. But, by the same token, I do feel the case against them are not supported enough in either WP:MEDRS or WP:Reliable sources to merit use of Wikivoice to say they are untrue (eg “misinformation”, “conspiracy theories”).

Times, Sunday Times, Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph are considered to be four of only eight Quality press newspapers in the UK. More to the point, Times, Sunday Times, Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph are all considered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources told be Wikipedia:GREL.

A very related, but technically separate issue is whether lab leak and GoF/genetic engineering theories should be called “conspiracy theories” or “misinformation” in Wikivoice. I think it’s very clear at this point that they should not. I think a new Talk topic should be opened re this specific issue and I intend to when I get some time. JustinReilly (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I forgot there’s an ongoing extensive discussion (of which I think most of you may be aware) of the ancillary question I brought up on the Talk page of a more specialized article: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory under the Topic “What's the source for the claim - "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis"” (May 16, 2023) JustinReilly (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

A number of better sources describe SARS bioweapon conspiracy theories as among the most outlandish, there's no valid reason to remove the current material, especially if the only argument are these sources. —PaleoNeonate – 11:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete "Alleged leak of death toll by Tencent" entry based on blog post

The New Bloom blog post titled "Taiwan News Publishes COVID-19 Misinformation as Epidemic Spreads" which levies allegations of “misinformation” against the Taiwan News Tencent article is disreputable because it is based on the assessment of a non-existent person. The “former biosciences graduate” cited in the article, “Lars Wooster,” has not publicly published any papers and has no web presence with the exception of the single post uploaded by the blogger Brian Hioe. In addition, the photo of Wooster https://newbloommag.net/author/lars-wooster was AI-generated.

Secondly, Hioe has a track record of harassing and openly attacking Taiwan News for the sake of drawing attention to his blog post cited in this page is a typical example of his hit pieces against the news agency. Hioe has a personal vendetta against the author of the Taiwan News articles in question and has routinely issued defamatory comments against the author on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

Thirdly, the Wikipedia entry states that the author of the original news article defended the authenticity and newsworthiness of the leak in an interview with WION, but fails to properly link to the actual WION interview and instead links for a second time to the same Hioe blog post. The following is the correct link to the WION interview: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2581906558753179.

Therefore, in order to maintain Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and objectivity when presenting information about the Covid pandemic, the attacks authored by Hioe and associated content regarding Taiwan News’ coverage of the pandemic should be removed immediately.

Furthermore, The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-families-should-be-sweeping-graves-now-but-thousands-still-havent-buried-their-dead/2020/04/03/5a6daa50-7234-11ea-ad9b-254ec99993bc_story.html and other media outlets later reported that based on the excess urns sold at crematoriums in Wuhan in early 2020, point to an estimated 40,000 deaths from COVID, consistent with the Tencent leak and mass cremation articles. The Economist in 2022 estimated that deaths from the first wave of Covid in China was as high as 1.7 million: https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2022/01/02/beijing-is-intentionally-underreporting-chinas-covid-death-rate-part-1/?sh=730dea784352. Taiwantruthseeker (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

If the purpose of the post was to provide the original source of the reports on the data leaks by Tencent, there were multiple Taiwanese media outlets that reported the incidents far earlier than Taiwan News, such as Liberty Times https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/3050613 and New Tang Dynasty Television https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/02/03/a102768360.html. The post in its current state is tainted by Hioe's biased agenda against Taiwan News. There is no reason to list Taiwan News rather than the original sources of the news in this post other than to further Hioe's agenda of denigrating the news agency for personal gain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.235.17 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is hard to understand

Not sure

The lead section is very detailed about specific points, but it is hard to understand why the subject is notable. It is missing facts such as dates and time frames, the impact, why it is important and who it is important to. I think it needs to provide a general summary and leave out the specifics. Lightbloom (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Original research

Work in progress; comments welcome

 – additional sources added but text needs updating to match

From the article's section "Treatment"

Treatment

Main article: List of unproven methods against COVID-19

Widely circulated posts on social media have made many unfounded claims of treatment methods of COVID-19. Some of these claims are scams, and some promoted methods are dangerous and unhealthy. Herbal treatments

Various national and party-held Chinese media heavily advertised an "overnight research" report by Wuhan Institute of Virology and Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences, on how shuanghuanglian, an herb mixture from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), can effectively inhibit COVID-19. The report led to a purchase craze of shuanghuanglian.

The source provided for the last paragraph is here [15]. However, I cannot see from the article why it belongs on COVID-19 misinformation. It does, however, seem relevant to the main article List of unproven methods against COVID-19.

From a cursory read, this seems to be a recurring problem throughout the article. Am I correct in saying that sources should specifically state that the information is (according to the lead) false information, including intentional disinformation, or a conspiracy theory? Lightbloom (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The scope of the article is very wide (your copied text from the lede truncates it), and include bogus treatments. The 'Treatments' section here is referencing List of unproven methods against COVID-19 as a "main" article, so it should really be just a brief summary of that article. Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should just have a brief summary. The given examples with sources in this section seem to not mention specifically that the treatments don't work, just that they haven't been proved yet or that they are traditional remedies, so listing them here in detail draws a connection that constitutes original research. Lightbloom (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If something 'hasn't been proved' but is offered as a treatment, that's quackery and misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree but the sources don't seem to mention it is quackery and misinformation so I think it falls under original research to specifically detail it in COVID-19 misinformation. I provided one example but this looks like a common pattern throughout. Lightbloom (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The article states its scope, which is quite wide. Things here should fall in that, but there doesn't need to be 1:1 word matching with this article's title. Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the example I gave constitutes false treatments though. Again, the sources don't seem to state that they don't work, just that they aren't proven, so to list them here constitutes original research. Also, I don't think the scope of the article covers unproven treatments. If that were the case, ongoing medical studies for COVID-19 treatments would be classified under this article. Lightbloom (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

In evidence-based medicine the assumption is something doesn't work until shown otherwise, since in nearly all cases treatments cannot be disproven. If something subject to "ongoing medical studies" was offered as an effective treatment, that would be misinformation too. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

According to my original example, it states a Chinese medical report stated that an herb mixture can effectively inhibit COVID-19. Can is ambiguous language, it doesn't state whether it's effective or not. Also, according to the article, further studies are ongoing in various Chinese institutions. Lightbloom (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I added a new cite which explicitly links shuanghuanglian to misinformation, as well as calling it a "fictitious cure". MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I think your source sheds some more light. It states

Wuhan Institute of Virology had discovered that the SHL herbal remedy could ”inhibit” 2019-nCov [22]. The study was launched by laboratory in vitro studies and required further clinical studies to confirm its effectiveness on humans. However, this finding was commonly misinterpreted as 'SHL helps to prevent or cure coronavirus.

The current text seems to imply that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had published COVID-19 misinformation. In fact it seems their report was misinterpreted by the media. Perhaps it would be useful to update the text to match the new source. Lightbloom (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

PCR testing

Someone switched the order of paragraphs under § PCR testing so that the first sentence read: In reality, the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 is highly sensitive to the virus, and testing laboratories have controls in place to prevent and detect contamination. This is hard to understand without first having any mention of the false claims about "problems" like these. I've restored the original order so it makes more sense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation on school safety

Schools in the U.S. were kept closed long after it was proven that they were not a significant risk for transmission. This should be cited in the article. Here are some sources for the true information about the risk of keeping schools open:

May 28, 2020: Reopening schools in Denmark did not worsen outbreak, data shows

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-05-28/opening-schools-in-denmark-did-not-worsen-outbreak-data-shows

July 13, 2020: German study finds no evidence coronavirus spreads in schools

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/13/german-study-finds-no-evidence-coronavirus-spreads-schools/

July 21, 2020: No known case of teacher catching coronavirus from pupils, says scientist

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-known-case-of-teacher-catching-coronavirus-from-pupils-says-scientist-3zk5g2x6z

Mn06hithere227 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be any "misinformation". The relative benefits and harms of school closure in various countries may have been debated and re-assessed over time; that's more "science" than misinformation. See PMID:34311990. Bon courage (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)